My second financial hearing is coming up in a few weeks. Stbx is successfully stalling and I think there is a good chance that the hearing will be adjourned. Even if it goes ahead, stbx will probably not agree to any proposals and push for a third and final hearing - basically stalling for as long as possible. My dilemma is, if my solicitor engages and preps a barrister it will cost a lot of money, which maybe a complete waste given the hearing is probably going to be adjourned, and might be pushed to a third hearing if it does go ahead. So I am wondering, don't waste my money on a barrister for this hearing; if it does by some miracle go ahead, I self represent in the expectation it'll go to a final hearing anyway, then get a barrister for that. Could anyone advise if I will be disadvantaged by representing myself at this second hearing, if it is going to third hearing anyway?
Guest viewing is limited
- You have a limited number of page views remaining
- 2 guest views remaining
- Register now to remove this limitation
self representing at financial FDR
- Thread starter Dirge
- Start date
Hi Dirge, is the STBX a LiP for these proceedings?
I had the same predicament, I was offered a pupil barrister as two became available ,however I appointed a barrister with the short experience and a lower cost as I'm sure someone posted on here, don't go full tilt on the first hearing. I stuck with my original plan of the appointed barrister ,as even though we're thinking there's going to be an adjournment I still wanted to have that so called heavy prescence for that forst hearing and I had committed to the cost. Just bear in mind, the judges will be different for each hearing and not a guarantee you will get the same barrister for each hearing.
Thanks for the replies. Stbx and myself were both represented by solicitors at the fhdra hearing. She had a barrister at the CAO hearing, so no doubt she'll have one for the Fdr. However, she'll have the advantage of knowing if she intends to get it adjourned. I believe proposals at this second hearing will be without prejudice, so if it goes to a third and final hearing anything proposed previously won't be known to the judge - which will almost certainly be a different one otherwise they would be aware of previous proposals. I'm just a bit concerned that as a LIP, I'll somehow get railroaded into taking a shitty deal at the second hearing.
As @capa stated, you can't be forced into anything at the FDR, it's only an indication and all the proposals are w/o p.
I'm not looking to go to FH as I'm protecting assets which all up so am fully represented but strapped for cash, so I've chosen to try and hammer a deal at FDR.
But the above approach sounds good, ignore the FDR, just LiP and keep the spend for FH.
If you don't mind the extra wait to resolve then only thing to be mindful of I guess that there can still be orders for extra reports etc out of the FDR, so get some early advice on those possibilities and prepare them save your cash.
I want to resolve as quickly as possible, stbx wants to stall as long as possible, that's why I think she won't agree any reasonable proposals, and I'll have to agree a shitty proposal to avoid a third hearing. Even if judge indicates stbx won't get what she wants at a final hearing, think she'll still want to stall. So these extra reports - if I'm a LIP, could stbx's barrister force them through, where if I had a barrister they could be prevented? I'm trying to think of worst case scenario if second hearing does actually go ahead on scheduled date and I go it alone.
My experience of the FDA was that a number of REPORTS were ordered & although I had good representation, we couldn't fend them off, the Judge just took the view that if you can't agree anything, order a report & was willing to order a number of reports but we managed to get a few dismissed.
I'm taking the view that anything that remains in contention will just end up being a repeat of the same i.e. if you can't agree Pensions value, order additional experts, if you can't agree Company value, order more detailed reports, if they think you're hiding assets, order a detailed searches etc.
If the CAO process is anything to go buy, every attempt at reasonable negotiation just yielded an unhelpful & non-conciliatory response, so I can't help but think that the FDR is a waste of time as well given only the FH will actually be binding and give you an order.
Ultimately your point stands I cannot stop pondering it's implications since you made this post.
I'm taking the view that anything that remains in contention will just end up being a repeat of the same i.e. if you can't agree Pensions value, order additional experts, if you can't agree Company value, order more detailed reports, if they think you're hiding assets, order a detailed searches etc.
If the CAO process is anything to go buy, every attempt at reasonable negotiation just yielded an unhelpful & non-conciliatory response, so I can't help but think that the FDR is a waste of time as well given only the FH will actually be binding and give you an order.
Ultimately your point stands I cannot stop pondering it's implications since you made this post.