AQLR Position Statement on Undertakings
1) The Association of Qualified Legal Representatives (AQLR) considers it necessary to clarify its position on the recurring issue of undertakings being demanded from QLRs as a condition for receiving police disclosure or other sensitive parts of the family court bundle. As the statutory QLR scheme continues to settle into practice, misunderstandings have periodically arisen regarding disclosure obligations, the status of QLRs, and the role of undertakings within family proceedings. This narrative sets out the Association’s clear, consistent position.
2) The QLR role is a creature of statute, created by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and governed by Part 3A of the Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 3AB, and the statutory guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice. A QLR is appointed directly by the Family Court for one purpose only: to conduct the cross-examination of a protected party or witness where cross-examination in person has been prohibited. The QLR also assists the court. A QLR does not act on the record for the party, does not assume wider responsibility for the case, and is not analogous to a solicitor or barrister instructed in the ordinary sense. The appointment is limited, functional, and entirely dependent upon the court’s direction.
3) Within that framework, the AQLR confirms that there is no requirement in the statute, the Rules, the Practice Direction, or the statutory guidance for a QLR to sign an undertaking—whether in the form of a confidentiality agreement, a non-disclosure commitment, or any other statement—as a pre-condition to receiving police disclosure or any other part of the bundle. Where the Family Court appoints a QLR, it routinely directs that the QLR shall be served with “the bundle” or “all relevant material” necessary to discharge the statutory function. That is the legal basis upon which disclosure is provided. Opposing solicitors, police forces, or third parties cannot unilaterally impose additional conditions or fetter the effect of a court order.
4) Undertakings are a serious matter in professional regulation. For solicitors regulated by the SRA or barristers regulated by the BSB, undertaking obligations carry disciplinary consequences that can extend to suspension or striking off. Signing an undertaking is therefore not a trivial administrative step. It creates an independent professional obligation which exists outside the QLR’s limited appointment and may extend far beyond the duration or scope of the proceedings. A QLR, whose statutory function is narrow, time-limited and strictly defined, should not assume professional liabilities that have no basis in the governing legal framework and are inconsistent with the purpose of the appointment.
5) For these reasons, the AQLR’s position is unequivocal: QLRs must not sign undertakings for the receipt, use or destruction of police disclosure or any part of the family court bundle unless the court expressly and specifically orders them to do so. In the absence of such a direction—and to date there is no known instance of a court making one—there is no lawful basis for such a requirement. Where a court order directs service of the bundle on the QLR, solicitors must comply with that order. They cannot lawfully withhold disclosure pending the signing of an undertaking.
6) If a solicitor or police force refuses disclosure on this basis, the appropriate response is not to sign but to inform the court. The Family Court can then order service to take place, provide the material directly, or criticise the obstructing party as appropriate. It is the refusal by the solicitors, not the refusal by the QLR, that creates delay or procedural unfairness. A judge cannot make a wasted costs order against a QLR for declining to sign an undertaking which the court never ordered and which lies outside the statutory scheme. If any costs or delay issues arise, they fall squarely on the party refusing to comply with the court’s original disclosure order.
7) The AQLR further rejects the suggestion that a QLR could or should obtain the bundle from the litigant in person. In many cases, especially where police disclosure is redacted or restricted, the litigant is not permitted to possess such material at all. Asking or expecting them to provide it undermines the protective purpose of the scheme.
8) In summary, the AQLR’s position is that the statutory scheme already governs the receipt and use of family court material by a QLR. Undertakings play no role in the QLR appointment and should not be introduced informally or by external pressure. QLRs should rely on the authority of the court order appointing them, decline to sign any undertaking for which there is no legal basis, and inform the court without delay if disclosure is withheld. This approach ensures consistency, protects QLRs from unintended regulatory exposure, and preserves the integrity of the statutory scheme.
