Top 10 Playlist: Being Effective and Efficient in the Financial Remedies Court in 2026
The publication of the Financial Remedies Guide 2026 marks the consolidation of practice within the Financial Remedies arena. Replacing the previous Efficiency Statements, the 2026 Guide provides a framework for the conduct of financial remedy proceedings at all levels. For practitioners, efficiency must be central to the conduct of financial remedy proceedings.
1. Non-Court Dispute Resolution
The courts expect parties to have engaged in at least one form of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) before proceedings progress unless there is good reason to not do so. Judges are required to consider NCDR at every stage of proceedings and may delay or suspend proceedings where no attempt to engage in NCDR has been made.
Practitioners should approach NCDR strategically; this is an opportunity to narrow issues and obtain insight into a range of likely outcomes for proceedings. The court’s expectation for parties to engage with NCDR before and during proceedings reflects a broader shift towards front-loading resolution.
2. The Duty to Negotiate
Practitioners have a duty to openly and reasonably negotiate. This is expressly reinforced in the guidance. Parties must demonstrate compliance: position statements must record the steps taken to negotiate. The court is empowered to impose cost consequences where a party fails, without good reason, to engage in reasonable negotiation once the financial landscape is clear.
Open offers and constructive engagement are central to litigation strategy. A failure to engage risks not only damage to your case before the court but also risks costs consequences. In this sense, negotiation is an evaluative part of the litigation process.
3. Allocation: Strategic or Administrative?
Allocation is a critical stage in ensuring proportionality and efficient case management. Most cases will be allocated to District Judge level, with more complex cases being escalated depending on factors such as asset structure and disclosure issues. The High Court Judge level is reserved for cases that are both exceptionally complex and proportionate to that level of judicial resource, with financial thresholds being indicative but not determinative (see paragraphs 34 – 42 of the Guide).
Practitioners must treat allocation as an early strategic decision to ensure the case is framed in such a way that reflects its complexity.
4. Freezing and Hemain Injunctions
The Guide clarifies that applications for freezing and Hemain injunctions will ordinarily be dealt with within the Family Court. High Court involvement is not the default and will only be justified by complexity and the criteria above. This reflects the broader principle: interim remedies should be handled within the existing family justice system structure wherever possible to avoid unnecessary delay.
5. Without Notice (Ex parte) Hearings
It is for the judge to decide whether an application is listed on a without-notice basis, and where it is listed without notice, it is for the court to adjudicate whether an order is made on this basis. Injunctions without notice will only be granted where there is a good reason to depart from the general rule of hearing both parties. Similarly, applications for leave under Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act (MFPA) 1984 s.13 will usually be heard on notice (inter partes).
6. The Procedural Roadmap
The Guide now sets out the steps required at each stage of proceedings from First Appointment through to Final Hearing. This replaces the previous Efficiency Statements and provides a clear procedural spine for all cases. Practitioners should operate within this framework. Preparation must be aligned with the objectives of the three hearings:
The First Appointment focuses on disclosure and directions;
The FDR is a settlement opportunity; and
Preparation for the final hearing requires issue identification.
The procedural structure is most clearly seen in the staged approach to hearings. Each will be addressed in turn.
First Appointment
First Appointments are tightly structured and front-loaded. Parties must complete preparatory steps in advance of the hearing, 14 days prior:
The applicant must file a jointly agreed estate agent’s market appraisal for each family home (excluding rented properties). If agreement cannot be reached, each party must file their own appraisal and explain why agreement was not possible.
Each party must file and serve up to three property particulars for themselves and three for the other party to illustrate their respective housing needs. Including a map showing the location in relation to the family home is encouraged to assist the court in illustrating the matter further.
The applicant must file jointly obtained indicative evidence of both parties’ borrowing capacities. If this is not possible, each party must file their own evidence and explain why joint instruction could not be achieved. This does not prevent later reliance on formal expert evidence.
In addition, each party must file a questionnaire in accordance with the relevant requirements.
High Court Judge
For a First Appointment, subject to available judicial resources, the hearing will normally be listed for a half or full day.
At High Court Judge level, Circuit Judge level and District Judge level
Parties are encouraged to agree directions in advance using the accelerated procedure (Annex 2). They may also agree to treat the First Appointment as an FDR, provided the court is notified in advance (at least 14 days before the hearing) so appropriate arrangements can be made.
In advance of the hearing, each party must file and serve a concise questionnaire (normally no more than four pages) limited to proportionate and relevant requests. At least seven days before, a completed FM5 must be filed.
By 11:00am on the day before the hearing, the applicant must file a composite case summary (ES1) setting out issues and chronology and a composite schedule of assets and income (ES2), clearly identifying any disputed items. It is expected that the parties collaborate and confer on these documents before the hearing. The court will not accept competing versions of these documents (save for exceptional circumstances) ahead of the first appointment. Litigants in person are expected to prepare ES1 and ES2 in the same manner as a party who is represented.
If a private FDR is agreed, the court order must:
Identify the evaluator and date,
Dispense with the in-court FDR,
Restrict adjournment of the private FDR, and
List a follow-up direction hearing that may be vacated if a consent order alongside a D81 is filed and approved by the judge ahead of the listed hearing.
Orders for a private FDR are usually made at the First Appointment. While participation is voluntary, the court will set a clear timetable and expect compliance. Where the evaluator or date is not agreed, parties must provide proposed details (including fees), and the court may assist in reaching agreement or setting a mechanism to do so.
FDR Appointment
The FDR remains the central settlement mechanism within the financial remedy structure.
Circuit Judge and District Judge level
FDR appointments are typically listed for 1–1.5 hours usually in the morning. Parties must be available for the entire day and are expected to attend one hour early to begin negotiations.
High Court Judge level
FDR appointments at this level are typically listed for a full day, unless the parties justify a shorter estimate and obtain the judge’s approval. Parties must attend an hour early to begin negotiations.
At High Court Judge level, Circuit Judge level and District Judge level
By 11:00am on the day before the FDR, the applicant must file updated ES1 and ES2 clearly identifying any disputes. These must be jointly prepared. Separate competing documents are not acceptable, and the requirement applies to litigants in person as well as represented parties. An updated FM5 must also be filed where directed.
Preparation for Final Hearing
Circuit Judge and District Judge level
A PTR should be listed ahead of the final hearing and should be heard before the same judge who will conduct the final hearing.
High Court Judge level
As above, a PTR should be held before the allocated judge before the final hearing. The judge will decide whether the PTR should be heard remotely or in-person.
At High Court Judge level, Circuit Judge level and District Judge level
At the PTR the court must approve a final hearing timetable allowing proper time for reading, submissions, and judgment, with limited time for openings and no evidence-in-chief unless expressly permitted as s25 statements stand as evidence.
Expert evidence is tightly controlled: experts will usually not give oral evidence unless directed by the court on a specific issue, and if multiple experts are instructed, they must meet at least 28 days before the hearing unless already done.
By 11:00am on the day before the final hearing, the applicant must file the below jointly prepared documents:
Updated ES1 and ES2;
A neutral chronology,
An updated FM5 if required, and
An agreed statement of issues.
Save for exceptional circumstances, it is not acceptable to the court for these documents to not have been agreed prior to the final hearing. These obligations apply to litigants in person as well. If no settlement is reached at FDR, each party must file an open proposal within 21 days.
Final Hearing
At the final hearing, advocates must adhere strictly to the agreed timetable; there will be little tolerance for slippage. Failure to comply with key requirements (including ES1/ES2, chronology, statement of issues, position statements, and the hearing template) may result in sanctions.
7. Focussed Evidence: Section 25 statements and Witness statements
The stricter approach to section 25 statements reflects an emphasis on relevance and proportionality (paragraph 80 of the Guide). Effective statements should engage directly with the case and avoid unnecessary narratives. Practitioners should ensure statements are clear and assist the court in applying the section 25 exercise efficiently.
The Guide emphasises conciseness. Statements should be as short as possible, with the expectation they will not exceed 15 pages, and exhibits must be limited to key documents.
8. Bundles as an Advocacy Tool
Court bundles must comply with the new Practice Direction 27A. A compliant bundle materially enhances the effectiveness of the hearing. Overly lengthy or unfocused bundles risk undermining the court’s ability to identify the issues efficiently. Practitioners must be aware of the new practice direction as there may be adverse costs consequences to improper bundles.
9. Position Statements
Position statements play a central role in the modern FRC practice. Position statements must be concise, structured, and compliant with strict page limits (varying by hearing type and level). They must define the issues, set out the orders sought, and include negotiation efforts, while avoiding evidence, lengthy quotations, or exhibits. They must be clearly formatted and properly referenced to the bundle. Statements must be filed by 11:00am the day before the hearing and promptly exchanged. Permission is required to exceed page limits.
10. Orders
Orders must be clear and accurate using standard templates where possible. They should reflect the outcome only, without summarising the hearing or attributing views to the court. Orders should be agreed, drafted, and lodged on the day of the hearing or within 2 working days where necessary. If not agreed, parties must promptly provide a composite draft highlighting disagreements with brief submissions for the judge to resolve. Delay is not acceptable here.
Conclusion
The 2026 Guide reflects a jurisdiction that is increasingly structured, disciplined, and resolution focused. Its emphasis on early engagement, procedural rigour, and collaborative preparation marks a clear shift in how financial remedy litigation is expected to be conducted. Practitioners who engage proactively with these requirements will be best placed to navigate the modern Financial Remedies Court efficiently and effectively. The Guide can be found here.
