Can I dispute a valuation?

do you disagree with an expert valuation?

Where a party is unhappy with a valuation or other report provided by a single joint expert (SJE), the first step is to submit questions to the SJE for clarification. Under Rule 25.10 of the Family Procedure Rules, each party may submit such questions. However, the parties may only submit questions once, and they must be submitted within 10 days of the report, unless the court provides otherwise. These questions must be for the purpose of clarification only and sent to the other party for their reference. 

Once these questions have been submitted, the SJE’s answers will be added to their report. If the SJE believes a question to be disproportionate, then they may ask the court whether they should answer. Mere failure to respond to a question may result in the court directing that the SJE’s evidence should not be relied on.  

In some cases, each party may have instructed their own expert rather than a SJE and they may come to significantly different conclusions. The court may direct the experts to provide their evidence together, which is known as ‘hot-tubbing’. This allows the court to question each expert and hear their differing opinions in a way which helps the court come to a conclusion. This approach was supported by Mostyn J in CB v KB (Financial Remedies: Calculation of Income Streams and Child Support) [2019] EWFC 78, [2020] 1 FLR 795. 

Where the submission of questions does not aid a party in their concerns regarding a valuation, they may submit a Daniels v Walker application. 

daniels v walker application

If a party is unhappy with a valuation or other report provided by a single joint expert, they may seek permission from the court to instruct their own expert to provide evidence, rather than accept the opinion of the SJE. 

This principle was established in the case Daniels v Walker [2000] EWCA Civ 508, and as such, is termed a Daniels v Walker application. Here, Lord Woolf set out the following: 

“If, having obtained a joint expert’s report, a party, for reasons which are not fanciful, wishes to obtain further information before making a decision as to whether or not there is a particular part (or indeed the whole) of the expert’s report which he or she may wish to challenge, then they should, subject to the discretion of the court, be permitted to obtain that evidence.”   

Further guidance as to when the court will grant permission was set out by Eady J in Bulic v Harwoods & Ors [2012] EWHC 3657: 

1. Agreeing to a single joint expert does not prevent a party from obtaining evidence from another expert 

2. The parties should be permitted to obtain evidence from another expert where they have reasons which are “not fanciful”, subject to the court’s discretion 

3. What is deemed a “good reason” in one case may be insufficient in another  

4. The overriding objective is to achieve overall justice to the parties 

Eady J also held that where an issue is relatively “peripheral”, or concerns evidence of a non-technical nature, it will be unusual for a court to dispense with a report made by a SJE. He further clarified that whether a case is “substantial” will be relevant to the court, but this will not be determined solely by reference to the monetary value of the claim. 

This guidance was affirmed in Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2) [2020] EWHC 2386 (QB), and it highlights that the court’s decision in regard to a Daniels v Walker application is fact specific.  

More recently, in GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187, where we successfully acted for the husband, Peel J provided further guidance as to when a Daniels v Walker application will be granted. As the purpose of a Daniels v Walker application is to adduce expert evidence, Peel J emphasised that it must meet the test of being “necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings”. In determining this, Peel J referred to Sir James Munby’s assessment in Re: H-L (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 655  that “necessary” can be defined as "Lying somewhere between ’indispensable’ on the one hand and ’useful’, ’reasonable’ or ’desirable’ on the other hand", having "the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable". From looking at the eponymous Daniels v Walker case and subsequent caselaw, including the aforementioned judgment Hinson v Hare Realizations, Peel J drew the following principles: 

1. The party seeking to adduce expert evidence of their own, notwithstanding the fact that a single joint expert has already reported, must advance reasons which are not fanciful for doing so. 

2. It will then be for the court to decide, in the exercise of its discretion, whether to permit the party to adduce such further evidence. 

3.  When considering whether to permit the application, the following non-exhaustive list of factors adumbrated in Cosgrove & Anor v Pattison (supra) may fall for consideration: "... although it would be wrong to pretend that this is an exhaustive list, the factors to be taken into account when considering an application to permit a further expert to be called are these. First, the nature of the issue or issues; secondly, the number of issues between the parties; thirdly, the reason the new expert is wanted; fourthly, the amount at stake and, if it is not purely money, the nature of the issues at stake and their importance; fifthly, the effect of permitting one party to call further expert evidence on the conduct of the trial; sixthly, the delay, if any, in making the application; seventhly, any delay that the instructing and calling of the new expert will cause; eighthly, any special features of the case; and finally, and in a sense all embracing, the overall justice to the parties in the context of the litigation’. 

4. Particular attention should be given to the words “the overall justice to the parties in the context of the litigation”, which encapsulates the court’s task. 

When making a Daniels v Walker application, it is very important to clearly set out the reasons for a party’s dissatisfaction with the SJE’s report, as the court will base their decision whether to grant permission on this. It is generally more likely that a court will grant permission for a party to instruct their own expert if they took the opportunity to ask the SJE questions. In this case, it might further improve a party’s chance of success if it explained why the answers provided to these questions were insufficient or didn’t remedy the party’s issue with the SJE’s report.  

shadow experts

A party can instruct their own ‘shadow expert’, a professional providing expert advice and strategic guidance directly for them. Given that they act on behalf of one party rather than for the court, they operate behind the scenes. Their primary role is to assist the party instructing them and they can provide their opinion on the valuation report produced by the SJE. Since they do not produce evidence to be heard in court, the court’s permission is not required in order for a party to use them.  

Shadow experts can provide valuable assistance on various issues and are not subject to the same rigid instructions as a SJE may be. They can provide ongoing advice to a party and their solicitors, which can be very helpful in large cases. As they can review the report provided by the SJE, they can identify questions to be directed to them to provide clarification and ensure all relevant information has been considered. This can be incredibly helpful and may help prevent a party feeling it necessary to make a Daniels v Walker application. 

In cases involving complex financial issues, instructing a forensic accountant as a shadow expert can be very beneficial. 

Our financial forensics team

Vardags is the only family law firm with a dedicated in-house Financial Forensics department. Our team specialises in the identification, tracing, valuation and forensic review of assets – including businesses, property and investments. 

We handle complex financial cases involving the valuation of private companies, interpretation of complex remuneration schemes, finding hidden assets and liberating cash to allow clean-break settlement. The team is led by forensic financial analyst and accountant Katharine Danby, who is supported by accountant and expert in valuations, Ben Crowne.  

For many of our clients, contentious valuations and disputes over the existence of assets form a large share of the disputed issues in their divorce. Whether our client is being accused of undervaluing their wealth, or their spouse is hiding assets themselves, our team can help. 

We also collaborate with our external consultants, whose expertise ensures that specialist elements of a client’s case are properly assessed. Our property consultant Krystyna Burnett values complex property portfolios based in the UK and abroad, helping the team accurately determine the true value of a party’s assets. Furthermore, the team work closely with our tax consultant John Hayes, who has over 30 years of experience in global finance and tax structuring. Given the ever-changing tax landscape in the UK and abroad, and the effect that tax may have on asset valuations, John’s expert insight provides clients with a strategic advantage. 

If you require the expertise of a forensic financial analyst and accountant, get in touch with us today. We provide a free initial consultation for suitable clients, typically those where the parties’ net assets exceed £1 million, or the combined income is £150,000 and above. 

If you are interested in disputing a valuation of your assets, or your spouse’s assets, contact Vardags today for a free initial consultation with one of our expert divorce solicitors.  

BOOK FREE CONSULTATION