GA v EL
[2023] EWFC 187
BR v BR
30 January 2024
[2024] EWFC 11
Family Court
A wealthy couple is divorcing. The judge decided to use one expert to value the husband's businesses instead of letting each side have their own expert. This is because using one expert is cheaper, fairer, and will likely provide a more reliable valuation for everyone involved.
Key Facts
- •High-value financial remedy case (£183m total assets, approximately £163m in business interests).
- •Parties married in 1998, separated in 2023.
- •Two children.
- •Wife's Form A filed in August 2023.
- •Wife's questionnaire was 81 pages long with over 500 questions, primarily concerning the husband's businesses.
- •Initial agreement for separate expert valuations by each party.
- •Court's decision to order a Single Joint Expert (SJE).
Legal Principles
In financial remedy proceedings, expert evidence is necessary if it assists the court (FPR 25.4(3)).
FPR 25.4(3)
Where multiple parties wish to present expert evidence on a single issue, the court may direct a single joint expert (SJE) (FPR 25.11(1)).
FPR 25.11(1)
Wherever possible, expert evidence should be obtained from a single joint expert (PD25D para 2.1).
PD25D para 2.1
The bar for departing from the default position of using an SJE is high; a high degree of justification is required.
J v J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam) and Judge's interpretation
All experts have an overriding duty to the court (FPR 25.3).
FPR 25.3
Outcomes
The court ordered the instruction of a Single Joint Expert (SJE) to value the husband's business interests.
The court found that instructing an SJE was the most appropriate course of action given the high value of the assets, the potential for conflicting valuations from separately instructed experts, and the principles outlined in the FPR and PD25D favoring the use of SJEs 'wherever possible'. The SJE approach is generally more cost-effective, reduces potential bias, and provides a more secure evidential foundation for the final hearing.