Journalists in Financial Remedy hearings

Reporter

This time last year, the Transparency Pilot in Financial Remedy Proceedings was rolled out nationwide across all courts in England and Wales. It has since been extended to 29 January 2027, with a view to becoming permanent (subject to consultation).

The pilot allows accredited journalists and authorised legal bloggers to attend and report on most financial remedy hearings, subject to a “Transparency Order” made by the judge.

Importantly, Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearings are excluded. FDRs (and, of course private FDRs) remain entirely confidential.

While transparency can sound unsettling in a family law context, the reality of the pilot is far more measured than many assume.

Why Transparency Was Revisited

Financial remedy cases involve wide judicial discretion. Outcomes depend on fact-specific assessments of fairness, often without clear ‘right’ answers. Yet historically, there has been little public insight into how such decisions are reached.

Although journalists have technically been entitled to attend family hearings since 2009 (under FPR 27.11), meaningful reporting has been rare. Strict confidentiality rules and lack of access to documents meant that proceedings were difficult to explain in any useful way.

The Transparency Pilot seeks to address that gap by enabling responsible, anonymised reporting, focused on judicial reasoning rather than the private details of family finances.

What the Pilot Actually Does

Under the pilot, a Transparency Order governs what may be reported and what must remain confidential. Hearings are still held in private, and anonymity remains the default.

To enable accurate reporting, a reporter attending a hearing may be permitted to see certain core documents, most commonly:

• the parties’ position statements (their written submissions), and

• Form ES1, a high-level summary setting out the key issues and financial information at a glance.

  
  

It is limited access designed to give context, not to expose personal finances.

What Can — and Cannot — Be Reported

Reporting is contextual, not forensic.

Journalists may describe:

• the nature of the dispute,

• the issues before the court,

• the broad scale of the assets involved, and

• the court’s reasoning.

They may not publish:

• identifying details of children,

• addresses or property identifiers,

• detailed financial information, or

• material extracted under compulsion beyond a high-level description.

The Judicial Reality: Limited Interest, Few Difficulties

Judicial experience to date has been prosaic. Press attendance in financial remedy cases has been extremely rare, even in courts where the pilot has operated for several years.

Outside a small number of high-profile cases (typically involving footballers or soap opera stars) most hearings attract no media interest at all. This mirrors earlier transparency initiatives in children proceedings and the Court of Protection, where initial curiosity quickly subsided.

What This Means in Practice

For most parties, the pilot will make little difference. Privacy protections remain robust.

For practitioners, it reflects a broader cultural shift. Financial remedy proceedings are increasingly understood as part of the public justice system, even where parties remain anonymous. That places greater emphasis on clarity, proportionality and focused decision-making.

Handled carefully, transparency should build trust in family justice, not undermine it.

© The Private FDR Group.  This article is for discussion purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice.