The process starts with the applicant filing an application for the court to deal with financial issues (Form A).

At the time of filing the Form A the court will fix the date for the first appointment within 12 to 16 weeks. This triggers a timetable which cannot be altered without the court’s permission. Cases are ‘front-loaded’, with most of the financial information gathering and exchange taking place within this relatively tight timeframe. The rationale is that full and frank financial disclosure from the outset makes early settlement possible; before effective settlement negotiations can take place, the parties must establish what there is to divide.
Each party is ordered to complete and swear a Form E, a pro forma court document in which each party details assets, resources, income, debt, contributions made to the marital wealth and future needs. Sworn Form Es are exchanged simultaneously five weeks before the first appointment and both parties can then request missing information via questionnaires. Simultaneous exchange ensures that each party puts forward their version of events without reference to information provided by the other.
Two weeks before the first appointment, the parties must also file the following:

• a concise statement of the issues between them,
• a chronology,
• a questionnaire requesting further information and/or documents not provided in the Form E; and
• a notice in Form G which states whether the parties will be in a position to convert the First appointment to an FDR hearing.

Each side must also file a written costs estimate for the first appointment, (and, later, for the FDR hearing and the final hearing). The rationale is that costs should be at the forefront of the minds of the parties so that they can see the implications of their behaviour as the application proceeds. At both the first appointment and the FDR hearing, the court will routinely warn the parties about the inevitable escalation of costs if the matter does not settle and the need to ensure proportionality between costs and the benefits obtained. Not only do regular costs estimates help to remind the parties about the need to adopt a proportionate approach to costs, but they also ensure that the parties are not shocked at the final hearing when confronted with the cost of their litigation to date.
Once the parties have established what there is in the marital ‘pot’, the court places great emphasis on working towards agreement. There is usually a chain of open or “without prejudice” letters between solicitors. These without prejudice offers enable the parties to lay their cards on the table and make their best offer without prejudicing the position they maintain at a final hearing if they do not settle as these offers cannot be seen by a judge apart from the FDR judge.  Essentially, the First appointment deals with directions and administrative matters in the case while the FDR hearing is much more concerned with attempting to find a solution. One direction which one or both of the parties might request at the first appointment is whether the matter should proceed to the High Court or continue in the lower court where most applications are issued. Only a small minority are deemed suitable for the High Court – where there are very significant assets or an important point of law or complex international elements. An FDR in the lower court would last for one hour and in the High Court half a day or a day.