FDR

Hi all, My 2nd court appearance is fast approaching.
Offers need to be in 14 days before hearing.
Am i correct in thinking the applicant has to put an offer forward first and me as the respondent replies ?

Many thanks

It depends what the order says. Sometimes exchange is simultaneous, other times it is sequential. The wording of the order is what is relevant to answering this question.

“ The parties shall exchange without prejudice for the resolution of the matters
in dispute not later than 14 days before the financial dispute resolution
hearing.”

Struggling to understand this,
I am worried they send their offer tight on the deadline giving me no time to counter ?

Any suggestions

The proposal to settle is your proposal to settle. You simply have to tell them what that is at least 14 days before the FDR. Although it is without prejudice - and should be marked as such - it is also helpful if any proposal is (a) realistic and (b) reasoned.

The point about an FDR appointment is that it provides the opportunity to negotiate on a without prejudice basis and also to hear what a judge thinks. To get the most out of such an appointment it obviously helps if both sides know what the other's position is in good time before the appointment rather than coming to the appointment blind.

Setting out what your proposals to settle are has nothing to do with 'countering' anything (except to the extent that any reasoning contained in your proposals may deal with what you think your opponent might be arguing).

Hi terry,
The order for the FDR says the following.
“Updating disclosure
Each party shall serve their updating disclosure by 4pm on the date 2 weeks
prior to the Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment”

What is meant by this ? I have replied to her questions and provided everything.

Updating disclosure means providing copies of all documents that needed to be disclosed in the Form E from the date of the Form E to the current date. For instance, since the Form E there will have been more bank statements and payslips etc. It also means disclosing anything which has changed since Form E and providing documentary evidence. For instance, since Form E a person could have been made redundant, had a promotion, received an inheritance, lottery winnings or started cohabiting or whatever. It means any additional information which would need to be disclosed if the Form E was being completed today.

So im getting overly stressed out and annoyed with my ex solicitor, to start off with they never sent me the draft order after the first hearing, i was unaware of the dates whereas they were. Passed that now.

So 9 days before the hearing other side email me at 18:00 demanding further disclosure by 4pm the next working day. Rushing to try and gather everything( yes learning on the job as they say) . I send what i have. Bank statements, credit cards etc.
My personal loan statement and car finance statement i said i do not have as they are getting posted out to me nonetheless not much has changed from the balance 4-5months ago minus the payments that have been made monthly.
Do i need to send my tax return over again? ( considering its the same one again as we not in the new tax year as of yet )
They asking me to provide details on an account that was closed over 12 months from issue of form E. I sent closing statement to show its been closed and answered such that it was more than 12 months that it was closed from
From E, they are asking to go back even further on that account to cover a period of 2 years from
Closure but the courts have not directed this. ( i have nothing to hide from it ) nonetheless .

Their response ; You are required to provide disclosure of all bank statements and all requested documents. This is mandatory and not something that you can decide whether you wish to provide or not. Unless I have full disclosure the hearing on the 13th of February 2025 will not be effective. My client shall be seeking legal cost if the hearing is found to be ineffective due to your lack of disclosure.

I hope you will cooperate and fulfil your obligation to provide full and frank disclosure.

Now if they want to find any excuse to adjourn the hearing thats another matter, but i am providing what i can.

Oh yes they want an updated mortgage statement when their client is also on the mortgage.
Can’t they go get hold of that themselves ?


Her original solicitor is in leave atm, and i feel like mentioned they also tried threatening tactics but did not work out to well for them.

Any feedback is welcome,

The only updating disclosure you need to provide is anything which has been directed by a court or which you would have to disclose in a Form E if you were completing it now and which would need to be disclosed because of an udate or change from a previous Form E. Uou do not have to disclose bank statements going back years unless that has been directed by a court or in a questionnaire approved by a court.

Having said that, if you can easily provide something it often makes sense to provide it rather than waste time arguing about something which is probably irrelevant. On a separate subject the standard response to this type of aggressive correspondence is usually to say, if applicable, 'what about X, Y and Z which your client hasn't provided?' People who nit pick are very often not blameless themselves.

I did provide a response similar to what you mentioned above, much more friendlier now.

They are now asking me more questions in which i do not know if i have to reply to any of them. One in particular is
“ In the bank statements provided I note that in October , November, December, January 2025 you haven’t been paid any money from your work. Please clarify why this is.

I also note that your brother ***** has paid you large sums of money on a monthly basis. Can you please clarify this?”

Firstly the courts have asked them to “remove” using the word large in payments.

I am self employed sole trader. I provided my last 3 years tax returns as required. I been out of work last 4 months.
I am not suddenly declaring myself unemployed and going on the dole. My brother in which he has the means to has been supporting me with money on a monthly basis to cover my cost of living. This soft loan will be returned whenever I'm in a position to do so. I am not putting this down as a liability.

Do i have to respond to this email when the courts have not directed this question to be answered.

>>Do i have to respond to this email when the courts have not directed this question to be answered.

No. If they have submitted a questionnaire which was approved by the court and you have answered it then that is that. People are not entitled to submit endless questions. The purpose of the formal procedure is to prevent this type of rolling question.

However, do bear in mind that the purpose of the FDR is to try to reach agreement. If answering questions like these makes it more likely that agreement will be reached then there would be no point in standing on principle. Finally, it is not uncommon for questions to be asked (and answered) verbally at an FDR. If these are additional questions and they are that important to them then they can easily ask you in person at the FDR.

So i have received an open offer to my surprise. The ex is now confirmed
To be residing in canada and working in canada
Note they are seeking 50% of equity and everyone keeps whats they have.
They want to use my self employed turnover as my income instead of what my
Profits actually are but dont recognise my bounce back loan as its a business loan.

In their open offer they have referred to the following legislation.
“ However, the council has referred parties to S39 of the Housing Act 1985, which
states that where an order is made under section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial
Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property
in connection with matrimonial proceedings) then upon such disposal parties
will not be required to repay any part of the discount as the disposal is exempt
under S39 of the Housing Act 1985. I attach the legislation for your ease of
reference.”

Now excuse my ignorance, if we agree without it reaching a final hearing- does the property adjustment order come into effect ?
Or does it only come into effect in a final hearing when the hammer drops. ( hope i make sense)

My offer is 10% of equity. We very far off.

>>if we agree without it reaching a final hearing- does the property adjustment order come into effect ?

It takes effect when it is approved by a court and becomes a court order (by consent if agreement has been reached). This means it can come into effect at any time after it has been agreed and approved - whether at an FDR or later. A 'final hearing' becomes unnecessary under such circumstances.

Oh, and all such orders are 'upon decree absolute' so if decree absolute has not been granted when the order is agreed and approved it only becomes enforceable as from decree absolute if that is later.

I believe i read somewhere that i could be liable to other sides legal fees if the open offer at FDR is deemed to be considered fair at the final hearing.
Is this correct ?

It is unusual for costs to be awarded against a person at a final hearing about matrimonial finances. The usual rule is that each side pays its own costs. There are exceptions. Sometimes a court will make an order for costs against a person the court considers to have been very unreasonable in the way he/she has behaved during the litigation. This is not a routine situation. When this happens it is almost invariably the case that any fair minded observer would think, 'Yes, that was very unreasonable and deserves to be penalised in costs'. Rejecting an open offer made at an FDR would not normally fall into that type of category. After all, such an offer might itself be unreasonable and/or otherwise unfair. Context is everything in this type of situation.

Last one before my FDR terry,

The ex does not want to take my liabilities into account as she claims are post separation. Such as credit cards, car finance, and a personal loan.
She being extremely petty and throwing all sorts onto the es2 now. ( which she had numerous occasions to do in previous occasions!
What is the courts view on claims for “post separation debt”

Some of the debt is not post separation nonetheless



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2025 06:14PM by Xh.p.

Generally speaking post separation debt stays with the person who incurred it. Notice this is 'generally speaking'. There can be exceptions but it is up to the person arguing for something different to justify it.

Judges opinion was 60-40 in my share and agreed bounce back loan should stand, agreed wife took partially more from saving.
From what limited information was put to him.
I was not aware i needed a position statement.

However a good barrister will have a field day at final hearing in my opinion.

We are still in talking as of this moment nothing decided.
However
She provided opening statement 10mins before hearing
Judge was not pleased.

She originally send an open offer to me, send the bundle to me with the open offer, retracted it without my knowledge.

I did not bring this up to judge as i did not know, how do the courts see this ? Surely this is now allowed.

I have offered 75/25 split in my favour for house equity.
Everyone keeps everything else.

Final hearing here we go

Remember that if you reach agreement before a final hearing that hearing becomes unnecessary. Often people do reflect on what a judge has said at an FDR and make suitably adjusted offers. Negotiations don't have to end just because there was no agreement at an FDR. In fact it is often the case that one or both parties only receive a realistic assessment of the likely outcome at an FDR. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen a person being given an unrealistic opinion by their lawyer before an FDR and then come face to face with the likely outcome at an FDR. That does often result in a change in negotiating position and then agreement. You should not overlook this.