The recent decision in XX v GH [2026] EWFC 51 (B) is not, on its face, about divorce settlements or asset division. Instead, it addresses a technical — but hugely significant — issue: Who is legally entitled to conduct litigation in financial remedy proceedings.

Yet beneath the regulatory question lies a much broader and more pressing theme: the growing strain on the family justice system, the rise of litigants in person, and the risks of navigating complex financial proceedings without properly authorised representation.

The Case in Brief

In XX v GH, the court was asked to grant a Chartered Legal Executive an exemption allowing her to conduct litigation in financial remedy proceedings.

Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (currently under appeal), it is clear that conducting litigation is a “reserved legal activity” under the Legal Services Act 2007. Unless authorised or exempt, a person simply cannot carry out core litigation tasks such as:

• Issuing proceedings
• Signing statements of case
• Filing court documents
• Instructing counsel
• Making substantive case management decisions

The applicant in XX v GH was an extremely experienced Chartered Legal Executive. The judge accepted she was highly competent and would likely qualify for authorisation via the new regulatory routes.

But competence was not the test.

The court refused the exemption. There was nothing “exceptional” about the case that justified bypassing Parliament’s statutory framework. The message was clear: experience alone does not displace the regulatory structure.

Why This Matters Beyond Regulation

At first glance, this may seem like an internal professional issue. It is not.

This decision highlights a wider access-to-justice tension. Since the withdrawal of most legal aid for private family finance cases, there has been a marked increase in litigants in person. Financial remedy proceedings are now frequently conducted with one — or sometimes both — parties unrepresented.

Financial remedy litigation is technically demanding. It involves:

• Strict disclosure obligations (Form E and beyond)
• Complex asset tracing
• Business and pension valuation evidence
• Case management hearings (FDA, FDR, PTR)
• Offers strategy and costs risk
• Nuanced application of section 25 factors

Even experienced professionals can struggle with the procedural intensity. For litigants in person, the challenge is immense.

The Hidden Risks of “Going It Alone”

Many separating spouses assume financial remedy is simply a matter of “listing the assets and splitting them fairly”.

In reality:

• Failure to provide proper disclosure can lead to adverse inferences or costs orders.
• Poorly framed offers can have significant financial consequences.
• Inadequate evidence can undermine otherwise strong claims.
• Procedural missteps can cause delay, stress and spiralling expense.

The court in XX v GH emphasised deference to Parliament’s intention that only authorised individuals conduct litigation. That intention is rooted in public protection — ensuring competence, regulation, and accountability.

The same public protection logic applies to parties themselves. Representation is not a luxury; in many financial cases, it is risk management.

The Rise of Litigants in Person: A System Under Pressure

Judges regularly acknowledge the difficulties faced by unrepresented parties. Court lists are stretched. Hearings take longer. Procedural misunderstandings are common.

But sympathy does not change outcomes.

The court must still apply:

• The statutory framework
• Procedural rules
• Disclosure obligations
• The law on needs, sharing and compensation

Financial remedy is discretionary but highly structured. Without early advice, parties often:

• Anchor themselves to unrealistic expectations
• Fail to gather the right financial evidence
• Misjudge litigation risk
• Miss opportunities for negotiated settlement

Ironically, attempting to save costs at the outset can dramatically increase them in the long run.

Early Advice Is Cost-Effective — Not Cost-Creating

One of the most persistent misconceptions in family finance is that instructing a specialist lawyer will “make things more adversarial”.

In practice, the opposite is often true.

Early specialist advice can:

• Clarify the realistic range of outcomes
• Narrow issues from the outset
• Shape sensible open offers
• Avoid procedural pitfalls
• Encourage effective non-court dispute resolution

It is often far cheaper to obtain focused early advice than to attempt to unwind mistakes later — particularly once proceedings are underway.

Representation Is About Strategy, Not Just Paperwork

Financial remedy litigation is not simply about completing forms. It is about:

• Strategic timing of offers
• Understanding evidential burdens
• Managing judicial expectations
• Protecting credibility
• Knowing when to press and when to compromise

The judge in XX v GH refused the exemption not because the legal executive lacked ability, but because the statutory framework required formal authorisation. Structure and safeguards matter.

For litigants, the principle is similar: structure, expertise and strategic oversight matter enormously in financial cases.

A Final Thought

XX v GH is, technically, a regulatory case. But it serves as a wider reminder of something fundamental in family finance:

Financial remedy proceedings are complex, high-stakes and procedurally unforgiving.

While many people understandably try to minimise upfront legal spend, the long-term financial impact of proceeding without proper advice can be far greater than the cost of early, specialist representation.

If you are facing financial remedy proceedings — or even contemplating them — the most cost-effective step you can take is to seek clear, strategic advice at the earliest stage.

In family finance cases, preparation is not aggression. It is protection.