Practice note published for London Financial Remedies Court


The key points to note are as follows:

• for national approval of the Financial Remedies Court, the name London Financial Remedies Court or London FRC should be used and the term “Financial Remedies Unit”, or FRU, should cease to be used.

• after a period when remote hearings were the only registration option, it is now possible, as a judicial decision, to give assisted or hybrid registrations

• The London FRC receives applications from people living outside London who have no real connection to London, therefore, at the time of application (whether on the digital portal or otherwise), the award questionnaire must establish the following:

where the applicant’s domicile is

whether the case is complex or not, and

why the London FRC was selected

• the digital consent order system has been fully operational since November 2020 and all consent orders produced before the contested proceedings are processed on this system, which are currently processed within a few weeks of filing

• the digital litigation system is also now operational, for which there have been “a number of start-up issues”, but as the clear plan of HMCTS is that there will be an “obligation”, that is, ie the digital portal will be the only authorized means to issue a form A from a date yet to be fixed, but likely to be during 2022, it follows that the digital portal must be used “for of good “, with a view to using it for all intents and purposes in due course

• except in the most exceptional circumstances, the setting of the date of the next hearing should take place in court before the end of the current hearing.

• a document will be published shortly, titled “Statement on the Effective Conduct of Financial Recourse Hearings in Financial Recourse Tribunal Below the High Court Judge Level” (LNB News 27/10/2021 68), and

• With regard to foreign language interpreters in money cases, the guidelines set out in paragraph 21 of the Practice Message should be followed in the London FRC, because while litigants in financial remedy cases usually do not have not entitled to a court-funded language interpreter, the HMCTS is required to provide an interpreter if this is the only way for a litigant to participate in a hearing and the checklist set out in paragraph 21 should be used to determine whether a litigant meets the requirements for the free provision of an interpreter


About Author

Comments are closed.