Significant cuts to judicial resources
Cuts to judicial resources for financial remedies work could lead to increased delays and costs for families
This week, the president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, announced to representative bodies that there will be significant cuts to judicial resources allocated for financial remedies work. This decision comes as a result of insufficient allocation of family court sitting days for the 2025/26 financial year. The changes aim to reduce the proportion of financial remedies work to just 13% of total sitting days. However, concerns have been raised that these alterations will result in considerable delays, disruption, and increased costs for families and practitioners dealing with financial cases.
From October 2025 to March 2026, the London Financial Remedies Court is set to experience a notable reduction in sitting days. This shift follows a Ministry of Justice directive mandating that a larger portion of family court time be reserved for public law cases. Consequently, financial remedy hearings will be double-listed, leading to longer trials with “back-up” cases that could be cancelled on short notice. In addition, overflow courts at the Royal Courts of Justice will also see a suspension.
Jessica Reid, a partner at the family law firm Dawson Cornwell, expressed her concerns regarding the situation. She stated, "These drastic cuts to judicial resources in the Financial Remedies Court are extremely concerning. Longer hearings - including trials - will now be double-booked as standard and may be stood down at the last minute, leaving clients exposed to wasted costs, delay and significant uncertainty. It risks forcing many into last minute private arbitration, increasing the costs, and widening the gap between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Once cuts of this nature are implemented, they rarely reverse, and the long-term outlook for access to justice in this area is bleak."
The implications of these judicial cuts highlight an urgent need for dialogue among stakeholders in the family law system. While intended to prioritise public law cases, the consequences for families requiring financial remedies could be profound.