Michael Chapman and Grace Matthews of the JMW Family team, instructing Counsel, Sally Harrison KC of St John’s Buildings, recently appeared in court on behalf of the Wife, to resist an application made by the Husband for permission to rely on his own expert’s report.

Background

Pursuant to a court order dated 8 July 2024, the court gave permission for PWC to prepare business valuation reports in respect of the Husband and Wife’s respective business interests. The Husband had 19 business interests and the Wife had 4.

PWC valued one of the Husband’s business interests at £27m and another at £1.3m. The Husband rejected these valuations and in June 2025, he instructed FRP Advisory (FRP) to value the two companies.  FRP valued the first company at approximately £7.1-£7.3m less that it had been valued by PWC and valued the second company £816,000 less than PWC.

Application

The Husband applied to court for permission to rely on FRP’s report, commonly known as a Daniels v Walker application. He claimed that the report was necessary for the fair computation of assets in the case and criticised the report of PWC based on the methodology and assumptions used to value the two businesses.

The Wife strongly resisted the Husband’s application on a number of grounds including the proximity of the final hearing, and the fact that information had been made available to FRP that wasn’t available to PWC.

Outcome

The Judge refused the Husband’s application and took the view that the FRP report was not necessary to determine the case. The Judge outlined that in deciding how the parties’ assets should be divided, its function was to undertake a “global assessment of fairness” and the report by PWC would enable to the court to do that. The Judge considered a more proportionate approach was for PWC to be provided with the additional information that had been provided to FRP, to consider whether it changed their view on the methodology they had used to value the business.

Commentary

When dividing their assets upon divorce, separating couples will often require the input of an expert to value assets such as businesses or pensions. The permission of the court should be obtained before an expert is instructed and most commonly the parties will jointly instruct an independent expert.

If one party then seeks to rely on an alternative expert report, an application must be made to the court and the court will consider several factors including, the reason a new expert is wanted and any special features of the case.

The outcome of this case demonstrates that there must be a high degree of justification to persuade the court that a further report is necessary and applications that are properly and robustly resisted are likely to be refused.

Read the judgment in full at the National Archives.