A safe space for settlement: what BC v BC tells us about private FDRs
The recent case of BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236 (Fam) has reiterated the importance of confidentiality at private Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearings, reassuring parties that what is said or done at the hearing won’t later be referenced openly to a judge in court proceedings.
What is a private FDR?
A private FDR offers couples a valuable opportunity to resolve financial issues outside the formal court process. Held on a “without prejudice” basis at a time convenient to both parties, it allows them to explore settlement options freely, guided by the insight of a financial remedy specialist of their choice — a barrister, solicitor or retired judge. This neutral expert provides an informal indication of what a court might decide, helping couples to make informed choices without the pressure of the court environment. The private FDR takes the place of the court-based FDR.
What are the benefits?
Private FDRs come with a host of advantages: flexibility, confidentiality, and the freedom to choose the evaluator. One of the biggest benefits is the ability to use the indication as a springboard for “without prejudice” settlement offers. This creates a safe space for negotiation, often paving the way to resolution without the need for a final hearing. Evidence suggests private FDRs have a very high settlement rate. When a settlement is reached, parties can avoid the cost, stress, and uncertainty of drawn-out litigation — a win for both sides.
BC v BC: confidentiality is key
BC v BC has highlighted the critical importance of confidentiality in private FDRs. In this case, the wife walked out of the private FDR shortly after hearing the evaluator’s indication, and the husband later referenced this in his open proposal, framing her conduct in a negative way.
The judge (Peel J) ordered removal of the offending remarks from the husband’s open offer, making it clear that such references undermine the integrity of the private FDR process. Peel J reinforced the principle that what happens at a private FDR — whether words or actions — must remain strictly confidential. He warned that breaching this expectation risks eroding trust in the process and discouraging open, constructive dialogue. As he put it, parties must be able to rely on the “sanctity of confidentiality” to enable “fruitful discussion” aimed at settlement.
What is disclosable?
The only details ordinarily disclosable from a private FDR in later court proceedings are “basic factual details” including:
- Whether the private FDR took place and whether both parties attended.
- The identity of the evaluator and the legal teams.
- Where the private FDR took place.
- How long the private FDR lasted.
Breaking the seal: exceptional circumstances justifying disclosure
While confidentiality is the cornerstone of private FDRs, there are exceptional circumstances where disclosure may be permitted. These include situations where a party is on trial for an offence committed at the FDR, or where a statement indicates a risk of serious harm to a child. In such cases, the need to protect safety and uphold justice can override the usual rules of privacy, but exceptions are strictly limited and carefully applied.
Trust the process: the case for private FDRs
In a climate of mounting court delays, private FDRs offer high-net-worth individuals a faster, more flexible route to resolution. The decision in BC v BC provides welcome reassurance that confidentiality remains sacrosanct — giving clients the confidence to negotiate openly, without fear of their words or actions being used against them later. It’s a timely reminder that when handled properly, private FDRs can be a powerful tool for settling disputes swiftly and discreetly.
Our experienced Family team regularly supports high-net-worth individuals through private FDRs, offering strategic advice and guidance throughout the process to help clients achieve fair, pragmatic outcomes with confidence.
Subcribe to news and viewsPrivate FDRs: The sanctity of confidentiality should not be eroded” (para 28)
