BR v BR
[2024] EWFC 11
GA v EL
31 October 2023
[2023] EWFC 187
Family Court
A wife wanted a second expert to value a business sold after the couple separated. The judge said it was too late to add another expert because the difference in what the experts were saying wasn't that big, and the existing expert could be questioned. The focus will be on overall fairness in dividing the assets, not just the numbers.
Key Facts
- •Wife (W) applied to adduce expert evidence (Daniels v Walker application) challenging the Single Joint Expert's (SJE) valuation of the parties' business interests in financial remedy proceedings.
- •The SJE used a 'present day approach' valuing the business at separation, which Mostyn J in E v L disapproved of.
- •W's proposed expert used a 'hindsight approach', resulting in a higher valuation.
- •The difference between the two valuations was relatively small (£1.6m).
- •The case concerned the division of approximately £35m from the sale of the parties' software company.
- •The parties married in 2007 and separated in 2019. They have two children.
- •W initially sought an equal division of assets, while H proposed a 62.5%/37.5% split in his favor.
Legal Principles
Expert evidence is only permissible if necessary to assist the court in resolving the proceedings (FPR 2010 25.4).
FPR 2010 25.4
'Necessary' means something between 'indispensable' and 'useful'—it connotes an imperative.
Re: H L (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 655
When considering further expert evidence after a SJE report, factors include the nature of the issue, amount at stake, delay, and overall justice.
Cosgrove & Anor v Pattison [2001] CPLR 177
In valuing businesses in financial remedy cases, a 'hindsight approach' using actual figures is preferable to a 'present day approach' using predictions (E v L [2021] EWFC 60).
E v L [2021] EWFC 60
Court valuations are 'fragile' and should be approached cautiously. A detailed accounting exercise isn't the court's primary focus in applying s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act; fairness is paramount.
Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050; Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24; H v H [2008] EWHC 935 (Fam)
Outcomes
W's Daniels v Walker application was dismissed.
The application was made too late, jeopardizing fairness to H and overall justice. The relatively small difference between the valuations and the availability of cross-examination made additional expert evidence unnecessary. The judge highlighted that a broader analysis focusing on fairness, and not just mathematical precision, would prevail at trial.