Second fdr hearing didn’t go as expected

[Runawayt]

Can anyone help? I’ve had my second fdr hearing but it wasn’t what I expected! Firstly, it was a different judge to the one at the first hearing and he did not take any notice of the directions from the first judge. Secondly, after asking just a few questions he announced what his decision would be if it was a final hearing, he did not ask us to negotiate and just ordered a final hearing! I was under the impression that this hearing was to allow us to negotiate and try to come to an agreement. I was fully prepared to negotiate and I think my ex was too! I have been left feeling totally deflated and wronged. I now have the only choice to pay what the judge said he would order or go to the final hearing when I was actual hoping to come to an agreement at this hearing! Is this the usual way of things? Have I totally misunderstood what I’ve been researching online about how second hearings should pan out? I thought the judge was supposed to help you come to an agreement and to help you avoid a final hearing. Any advice gratefully received.

That’s not how it’s supposed to go. You’re supposed to have the judge for at least an hour. However the courts are in turmoil. Frequently they are listing 3 FDRs in an hour. It Emma’s wrong of the judge to do what they did, but maybe they felt they couldn’t get through their list any other way.

You’re supposed to have the judge for at least an hour. However the courts are in turmoil. Frequently they are listing 3 FDRs in an hour

I had at most 15 minutes for my FDR and that was spread over 3 sessions with the Judge! Judge was apparently dealing with a serious child case and spent more time looking at their watch or wall clock telling the 2 Barristers to get a move on. Made a ridiculous recommendation just to get rid of us.

If everyone waived their fees for the FDR I would not have been bothered, but hanging around the Court for a full day with two Barristers was not cheap (Over 1,000 each) hoping the Judge could spare us a minute.

So forced to move proceed to a Final Hearing. Outcome of Final was nowhere near the recommendation made at FDR.

Thanks for your reply. Yes we were supposed to have an hour but it was more like 15 mins, maybe half an hour, but not an hour! I think they had a bit of a messy case before ours with lots of people and barristers but don’t think there was anything after. I’m in such a turmoil as what to do next 😩

It’s not fair at all after all the worry leading up to it, I’m sorry yours was so bad too, at least I didn’t have a barrister to pay, I wondered whether that was my mistake but maybe not. My ex lied to him as well and said we had lived together for 6 years when it was more like 3 years in total with months in between. I’m so scared to go to final hearing in case I lose my house that I owned before 😩

There was almost a 5 month gap between the FDR and Final hearing. So you and ex have time to work out a deal that you are both happy with.

One risk of Final Hearing is that Judge may make a decision that neither of you like as they have virtually unlimited powers. As to deciding who is lying and who is not I think Judges are good at that.

Suggest you have representation at the Final Hearing as Divorce is a life changing event. Don't think I have heard of someone representing themselves at a Final Hearing.

Good luck. Must admit I worried for months in fear that the Judge at Final Hearing would be the same get it over quick one present at the FDR. Thankfully it did not happen.

Once my Barrister had demonstrated that my Ex had lied on Form E and was making false statements about medical conditions that prevented them from working it was plain sailing.

Very little Ex's Barrister asked me as I had been upfront with disclosure and the Judge already knew about my ex jumping from one solicitor to another, ignoring the Court Order to provide bank statements, etc. Icing on the cake was the 3 Cost Orders against Ex for wasted and adjourned Emergency Maintenance hearings

Thank you, yes that’s my worry as he has nothing to lose and I have everything! In the overall picture of things he’s not asking for much but I just don’t have the money to give to him! He’s still not provided me with form E supporting documents either although he’s given them to the court. I feel I have a strong case as it was such a short marriage but it’s a massive gamble to take when it’s your and your children’s home st risk!

I worried for months in fear that the Judge at Final Hearing would be the same get it over quick one present at the FDR.

No judge who conducted an FDR, however ineptly, can conduct the trial. Your solicitor could have told you that!

Yes I’m aware it’ll be a different judge at the final hearing if it comes to that but thought the judge at the second hearing was supposed to be the same judge as at the first hearing 🤔

To Bert Bibby

I knew that it was not possible for FDR and Final Hearing Judge to be same person. My meaning was I was afraid the Judge at Final Hearing would be as inept as that at FDR.

I had different judges.

On my second one my exh also used itt to tell more lies.

Is it possible the judge just thought you are wrong and won't change your offer?

Yes I think maybe he did. I think I messed up big time with understanding his questions 😩

To Runawayt

How did you end up doing 2 FDR's? Thought there was meant to one only?

The first hearing (think it’s called an fda) and the second hearing (fdr)

Oh OK, so it wasn't a second FDR. The first hearing is the directions appointment (FDA). The second is the FDR. You would not normally have the same judge for the FDA and the FDR- you get whoever is available. The FDR judge is not permitted to conduct the final hearing.

An FDR is LISTED for an hour, but in my experience, you would not be before the judge that length of time at all. It's a few years since I practised, but as I recall, parties and legal representatives turn up at least an hour in advance of the listed time and use that time to try to negotiate (having by this stage had all the disclosure and answered questionnaires etc). You would then go before the judge, who would indeed give an indication of how s/he would decide this case at final hearing. You then go out and negotiate some more. You hopefully settle and can get before the judge to get the consent order approved, but if not, the judge sets a date for final hearing and makes directions.

The important thing is that the onus is on the parties to ensure that negotiations take place. They don't happen in front of the judge, so I am not sure why your legal representatives didn't use the judge's direction to negotiate. Or were you and your ex not represented?

From your description, I don't see anything out of the ordinary with how the judge conducted the FDR. If neither of you were represented, I guess maybe the judge thought that it's best to just fix the date for the final hearing, as it's unlikely that settlement will happen at court.

Also, while you might get a different outcome at FH as you would have a different judge, the FDR indication usually gives you a good steer of the ballpark of any order. It would be wise to negotiate within those parameters and if you end up with a settlement within the judge's range, you have not done badly.

Aha, I have read your posts a bit more now and it sounds like you were unrepresented. FDRs don't work well where you have two unrepresented parties who do not fully understand the process. They can work very well when you have proactive legal representatives who use the time productively to negotiate.

Did the judge order your ex to provide you with the docs he hasn't? He should have done so and I would have thought you could get a copy from the court file too.

What did the judge say about keeping the house? You are right that in short marriages, pre-acquired assets are less likely to be shared, but this is not always the case. If the judge gave an indication that you may have to give something to your ex, you do need to consider it carefully.

Did you get a detailed note of the indication?

Thank you PeakPants for your thorough guidance 👍 yes we were both unrepresented. No he didn’t mention my house he just said he would order me to pay what my ex wants, which is small in comparison to the equity I have. Advice from my family is to suck it up, borrow the money and pay him and not to go to final hearing as it could end up worse.

I obviously have no idea of what the assets in the case are, but I think your family sound sensible. Final hearings are awful and require lengthy preparation. You have had an indication from a judge who has seen the papers that what your ex wants is reasonable. I would think seriously about paying it and getting the case settled. Take legal advice on it, but it is always a risk going to a FH. Also, while short marriages do often involve parties keeping pre-acquired assets, judges very seldom leave the other person with absolutely nothing. E.g. I had a case where the husband had a house when he met the wife. They were married 2 years, no kids and both early 30s. He still had to pay her 50 grand (that was on my advice, not court-ordered, but I am confident it represented more or less what a court would order too as it was half of the increase in the house's value during their relationship).
Best of luck with it all.

the FDR indication usually gives you a good steer of the ballpark of any order

That's what is meant to happen, but certainly not in my case. If what COLLABORATE says about 3 FDR's per hour (one every twenty minutes) I don't see how Judges have time to listen to Advisor's opening statements from both Applicant and Respondent, read the Form E's and make a recommendation.

My FDR was particularly bad according to my Barrister. My Ex who was the Applicant had not even submitted their Form E before the FDR took place even though Ex was meant to submit 5 months earlier! My Barrister pointed this out to the judge in hope Judge would adjourn at my Ex's cost. Did not happen.

I was unemployed at the time and Ex (The Applicant) was working. Child was 12 at the time. Recommendation was that Ex got all UK assets and overseas assets (worth about 15% of UK Assets) were to be split equally.

Judge also recommended the Ex would be awarded Joint Lives Spousal Maintenance. That Ex was less than 40 at the time, was in good health, was to receive virtually all assets and already had a job seemed to be irrelevant!

Thankfully the outcome of the Final Hearing was very different. Judge had 2 days to listen to Barristers, read the disclosure documents, Form E's, etc., and listen to the evidence gave by both Parties.

Joint lives Spousal Maintenance ruled out immediately. Asset split slightly in favour of Ex based on fact I could earned a lot more Historically. Ex made the monumental mistake of quoting what Judge at FDR had said and that Judge at Final Hearing should say the same!!!!!

An episode in my life I will never forget.

Hope others going down the Divorce route take note and try to settle amicably.

Yes, Missed, that is the downside of a discretionary system obviously. At the same time, you can go to final hearing and do worse than the FDR indication.

Listing 3 FDRs in one hour is not a problem if the judge has read the papers. The FDR is not meant to be a one-hour block with the judge- you go in and out and are supposed to be there for half the day at least. There is nothing wrong with doing several at once but the key is that the judge must have read the papers.

Having an FDR without one party's Form E is indeed idiotic because how could you settle? And yes, pretty dim of your ex to refer to the FDR indication, but judges see this a lot as most lay-people struggle with understanding that the whole FDR is without prejudice.

Whatever you do, it's a risk, but it's a mistake thinking that you will do better because the judge has spent longer hearing the evidence. You could actually end up doing worse. You do sound like you had a bad experience though. I have seen some odd FDR indications myself, but I have also seen some odd final hearing outcomes where I wished we had listened a bit more to the FDR judge.

Listing 3 FDRs in one hour is not a problem if the judge has read the papers.

That’s as far from accurate as you can get. It is a big problem. The judge can only give each case 20 minutes. That includes all the time between getting the last lot out of court and getting the next lot in. We can’t pretend it’s normal. It’s not. It’s very unhelpful, puts the judges and court staff under too much pressure, and negates the whole point of an FDR (meaningful judicial guidance after hearing submissions, followed by approval of agreed order or making of contentious directions). It is caused by the scandalous cuts to the court service and the closing down of many courts. There are now not enough courts to go round. Fewer cases will settle this way, leading to more final hearings and a worsening of the backlog in listings.

I would do what your famliy advice is .
But if want to go to go to court you need a barrister.

And yes they talk before you see the judge . This is where you can negotiate. Before you go in. You don't it it front 9f the judge .
If you cant afford a barrister they are lay people around who could guide you but they will cost as well.

Hear bloody hear.

We're in freefall in South London and the South east, and yet they are now wielding the axe at Wandsworth. Even if they had more judges there are no rooms for them to sit in at Croydon.

Meanwhile issued cases (especially for children) rise inexorably. Nothing can get heard.

When Government takes away access to Justice, Parliament might as well pack up and go home, because legislate how it may, if you cannot assert the rights and remedies Parliament gave you, Parliament is a dead letter, and you no longer live in a democratic state.

I never really thought of courts in places like Reigate, and Tunbridge Wells, and Epsom, and Sittingbourne, and Chichester as underpinning the foundations of democracy and the rule of law, but that's what they did. Until the Tories threw them away.

Collaborate sorry, I meant that you had e.g. 3 FDRs listed for 2 pm but in reality, all parties are there all afternoon. This was normal practice in the PRFD 10 years or so ago and worked fine. I think the OP thought she would get 1 hour of unbroken time with the judge, which is not the case- the point is you flit in and out and negotiate in between and hopefully settle. Obviously not great if the total time available is 20 minutes per case.
Imo FDRs are quite pointless with two self-represented parties who are on bad terms and don't trust one another.
Anyway, I am really not one for pretending the system is great- irl I am a huge campaigner for bringing back family legal aid. I just wanted to reassure the OP that what she described is not actually abnormal. Even though it says 1 hour, you don't sit with the judge for a 1 hour block because there will be other cases in the list.

Thank you PeakPants. Can I ask, if I write to him with the offer and he accepts, what do I need to do next? Do I write to the court and tell them and then they do the order or do we still need to go to the final hearing?

I am a huge campaigner for bringing back family legal aid

How would legal aid help if Judges are trying to handle 3 FDR's in one hour?