Following BC v BC [2025], ‘offending words’ likely to be redacted from open offers

In this case, the wife (W) made an application to redact certain material from the Husband's (H's) open offer following a pFDR (Private Financial Dispute Resolution).

Since our blog post on pFDRs back in 2021, they have continued to gain traction as a fast solution to financial disputes, especially for higher net worth clients that can afford to employ a private judge.

However, as with regular FDR appointments, the hearings are entirely without prejudice, which means that the contents of any discussions cannot be later disclosed in open correspondence or to a judge at Final Hearing.

In BC v BC, while H's legal team was aware of the nature of pFDRs, they included a sentence in their open offer that stated:

“[H] hopes very much that, despite [W’s] impulsive decision to end the pFDR process so immediately yesterday, some sense will now prevail”.

H argued that this did not amount to any disclosure of the contents of the FDR, and instead was akin to disclosing "if it took place, the legal teams, the location and the length", all of which are disclosable details.

However, Mr Justice Peel wholly rejected this argument, and suggested that H's comment had implied blame, implied that W was unreasonable, and implied that the indication was against W, all of which are against the purpose of without prejudice discussions.

Mr Justice Peel stated "If the integrity of the FDR (and pFDR) process is to be respected, there should be no disclosure of the words or conduct of either party during the FDR"

In light of this case, it has been made even clearer to legal professionals that any information whatsoever concerning an FDR or pFDR cannot be brought up in open correspondence or at a final hearing. We believe this is a positive outcome that facilitates effective discussions without fear of negative repercussions.