UK – SOUTH WEST Trends and Developments Contributed by: Will MacFarlane, Sarah Dodds, John Ebenezer and Jennifer Headon, Birketts LLP
Birketts LLP EQ Bristol, 111 Victoria Street Bristol
BS1 6AX England Tel: +44 1172 331700 Email: Will-MacFarlane@birketts.co.uk Web: www.birketts.co.uk
The Year at a Glance The last 12 months have been a dynamic time of change in English family law, with the general direc ‑ tion of travel moving towards parties having increased autonomy to resolve disputes outside the court pro ‑ cess. The family justice system has continued its post-pandemic transition towards a system that is more open and digitally competent, while the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have refined core doc ‑ trines – most notably, the boundaries of the sharing principle in financial remedies. These changes sit alongside national transparency reforms and target ‑ ed amendments to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and Practice Directions that will shape everyday case preparation and advocacy in 2026. Transparency: From Pilot to Implementation The transparency story has been a key structural change this year. Following successful pilots put into train following Sir Andrew McFarlane’s 2021 report entitled ‘Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts’, the reporting provisions applied nationally from 27 January 2025. This introduced a presumption that a transparency order will permit accredited journalists and legal bloggers to report what they see and hear, subject to strict anonymity. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has published guidance for families explaining who may attend, what documents can be seen, and what can be reported. Practitioners in the South West and throughout England and Wales must now assume that position statements may be read by the press and draft accordingly.
Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR): Encouraged and Normalised
The cultural shift towards early resolution continued, and exploring options outside the court process has continued to gather momentum. Building on 2024 changes to the FPR (stronger MIAM duty, adjourn to NCDR powers, and costs exposure for unreason ‑ able refusal), 2025 saw judges more willing to pause to explore mediation, arbitration or private financial dispute resolution (FDR), supported by public-facing information initiatives. For clients and those represent ‑ ing them, frustration with court delays and the added pressure of the transparency changes added a further incentive to avoid contested litigation. A communi ‑ cation sent to key stakeholders in London (includ ‑ ing Resolution, the Family Law Bar Association and the London Financial Remedies Court User Group) indicated that the Financial Remedies Court would have to cancel a large number of sitting days between October and March, further pushing parties away from court towards the full range of NCDR options. In Bristol, we are fortunate to have a court centre that is well managed and we benefit from a dedicat ‑ ed and expert group of full-time judges and deputy district judges. This means that listing delays are far less severe than in London and the quality of tribunal remains high. For those reasons, there are fewer push factors driving parties towards private FDR or other NCDR options, although local judges are supportive of parties who do wish to engage in NCDR and are keen to lessen the burden on court listing where appropri ‑ ate to do so.
274 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook