‘What happens at FDR stays at FDR’: The question of reporting the events of a private financial dispute resolution appointment

Cason Yong, Coram Chambers

How true is the notion that “what happens at FDR stays at FDR”? Does this principle apply differently to private FDRs as opposed to court-based FDRs, and what does “without prejudice” actually mean in this context? With the growing popularity of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR), these questions have become increasingly relevant for practitioners and parties alike.

This article examines recent authorities to assess the extent to which the “without prejudice” rule applies in both court-based and private FDRs, and considers whether the current law provides sufficient clarity and consistency in defining its scope. It concludes that, for the most part, what happens at FDR does indeed stay at FDR, whether court-based or private. However, several loose ends remain for the court’s consideration, particularly in relation to costs consequences. The article argues that greater guidance is needed from the judiciary to avoid creating a de facto two-tier family justice system.