When a marriage or civil partnership ends, disputes over money, property, and maintenance often arise, demanding a fair and efficient legal process. For years, however, the family courts in England and Wales have struggled with increasing caseloads, underfunding, and procedural delays. In response, a pilot initiative—the Express Financial Remedy Procedure (EFRP)—was introduced in April 2025. It marks a notable effort to modernise financial remedies, making justice more accessible and faster for divorcing or separating couples with modest assets.

This article explores the EFRP’s purpose, legal framework, practical applications, and how it might reshape the future of family law in England and Wales.

The legal context: Financial remedies in family law

Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, separating spouses can apply for various financial remedies, including lump sum payments, property adjustment orders, pension sharing, and spousal maintenance. Traditionally, these remedies are pursued through a multi-stage court process:

  1. Form A Application: Initiates proceedings.
  2. First Directions Appointment (FDA): Preliminary hearing to set out disclosure and valuation steps.
  3. Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR): A without-prejudice hearing where the judge attempts to help parties settle.
  4. Final Hearing: The judge makes a binding decision if no agreement is reached.

While this structure aims to promote fairness, its rigidity, expense, and delays have come under increasing scrutiny. It often takes over a year to resolve cases—especially where parties are self-represented or where judicial resources are stretched thin.

The Express Financial Remedy Procedure: Objectives and criteria

Introduced on 7 April 2025, the EFRP pilot is a response to these systemic issues. It applies to financial remedy applications involving net assets under £250,000, excluding pensions. The pilot currently operates in selected courts across England and Wales and focuses on fast-tracking less complex cases to reduce court burdens and litigant stress.

Key objectives of the EFRP are to:

  • Simplify and accelerate the financial remedy process
  • Encourage early settlement through proactive judicial case management
  • Minimise court hearings and associated costs
  • Improve access to justice for self-represented litigants (litigants in person)

The procedure retains the same basic steps as traditional remedies—Form A, FDR, and (if necessary) a final hearing—but drastically reduces the time between them. An FDR is scheduled within 16–20 weeks of application, and final hearings are pre-listed to take place no later than 30 weeks post-application.

To understand how the EFRP works in practice, consider the following fictional scenario:

Emma and Liam, a married couple of 12 years, decide to divorce amicably. Their primary asset is a jointly owned house valued at £210,000, with a mortgage of £50,000. They have a joint savings account with £10,000. Neither has a significant pension.

Initially, Emma proposes she stay in the home with their children and Liam receives a lump sum from the savings. Liam disagrees, wanting the home sold and the equity divided. Attempts at mediation fail.

They file a Form A and, because their net assets (excluding pensions) fall under the £250,000 threshold, their case qualifies for the EFRP.

At the FDR, scheduled 18 weeks later, the judge outlines realistic settlement outcomes and highlights the legal costs of a final hearing. Persuaded, Emma and Liam compromise: the home will be sold in a year after the children finish school, with a 60/40 split in Emma’s favour.

The matter concludes within five months—without a final hearing, extended litigation, or excessive legal fees.

What is EFRP’s structure and timetable?

The EFRP differs from standard proceedings in several critical ways:

  • Early and comprehensive disclosure: Parties are required to submit Form E, housing valuations, mortgage statements, bank records, and any settlement proposals early in the process. This front-loading allows for a more informed FDR and reduces the need for further hearings.
  • Single judicial continuity: Whenever possible, the same judge oversees both the FDR and final hearing. This continuity fosters consistency, better case understanding, and judicial accountability.
  • Pre-listing of hearings: Final hearings are pre-listed when the Form A is issued. This ensures that judicial time is reserved, reducing scheduling bottlenecks and administrative delays.
  • Encouragement of settlement: The FDR becomes the centrepiece of the process. Judges actively steer parties toward resolution, providing realistic assessments of likely outcomes. Since the hearing is without prejudice, parties are freer to negotiate.

Benefits for litigants and courts

The EFRP introduces tangible improvements for various parties involved in the process:

For the parties themselves:

  • Reduced costs: Legal bills are trimmed significantly through early settlement and fewer hearings.
  • Faster resolutions: Emotional and financial uncertainty are shortened.
  • Greater predictability: Set hearing dates from the outset allows for better planning.
  • Access to justice: The simplified process is more manageable for those without legal representation.

For courts and the judiciary:

  • Lower case load: Faster case turnover relieves pressure on family courts.
  • Efficient use of resources: Judges spend less time on straightforward matters, allowing them to focus on complex disputes.

Limitations and challenges

While promising, the EFRP pilot is not without its limitations:

  • Asset complexity: Although the asset threshold is set at £250,000 (excluding pensions), determining net assets is not always straightforward. Disputes over valuations or hidden assets may still prolong cases or necessitate expert evidence.
  • Exclusion of pensions: Pensions are often the largest financial asset in a marriage. By excluding them from EFRP eligibility, many seemingly simple cases may be disqualified.
  • Judicial involvement: The pilot relies heavily on active judicial management. For courts already stretched for personnel, maintaining consistency and availability of judges could be problematic.
  • Geographic access: As a pilot, the scheme is currently limited to selected court centres. Widespread benefits will only be realised if the scheme is expanded nationally.

The road ahead: Will EFRP become the new normal?

The EFRP reflects broader trends in family law: promoting settlement, limiting adversarial litigation, and modernising procedures to meet 21st-century expectations.

Its success will probably be judged on:

  • Settlement rates: Are more cases being resolved at FDR?
  • Litigant satisfaction: Do participants feel heard and fairly treated?
  • Cost analysis: Does it save money for the court system and litigants?
  • Judicial endorsement: Do judges find the process manageable and fair?

If early evaluations are positive, the Ministry of Justice may consider rolling out the procedure nationally, adjusting eligibility criteria and integrating lessons learned from the pilot.

The Express Financial Remedy Procedure Pilot is a bold attempt to address longstanding inefficiencies in the family justice system. By focusing on speed, disclosure, and settlement, it prioritises the needs of lower-income families—often the most vulnerable to legal system delays and costs. While not a panacea, it could significantly improve access to justice if scaled appropriately.