Court Rejects Husband's Daniels v Walker Application Despite £7 Million Valuation Difference

In a recent decision, the Family Court in England and Wales addressed the complexities of financial remedy proceedings in the case of BY v GC EWFC 226. The court, presided over by Nicholas Allen KC, rejected the husband's application to instruct a sole expert under the principles established in Daniels v Walker EWCA Civ 508. This decision was made despite a significant £7 million discrepancy between the valuations provided by the husband's expert and the single joint expert (SJE). 

Background of the Case

The husband (H) sought to introduce expert evidence valuing his business interests at £7.1-£7.3 million less than the valuation provided by the SJE. H argued that the SJE's methodology was flawed, and thus, a sole expert's valuation was necessary to ensure a fair assessment of the assets. However, the court found that the husband's expert's evidence was not "necessary" for determining the case, as business valuations are inherently uncertain and serve primarily to test the fairness of a proposed award rather than to achieve mathematical precision. 

Court's Rationale

The court emphasised its role in conducting a "global assessment of fairness" rather than relying solely on expert valuations. Despite the significant percentage difference in asset valuations, the court determined that the SJE's report was sufficient to evaluate the fairness of any proposed award. Allowing the husband's expert evidence would have necessitated the wife (W) instructing her own expert, leading to an inevitable and unjust adjournment given the proximity of the final hearing. 

Implications for Clients

This decision underscores the court's discretion in financial remedy proceedings and highlights the importance of proportionality and fairness over technical precision. Clients should be aware that the court prioritises a holistic assessment of fairness and may not always permit additional expert evidence, especially when it could delay proceedings or increase costs unnecessarily. 

Conclusion

The rejection of the husband's Daniels v Walker application in BY v GC serves as a reminder that the court, not the experts, ultimately determines asset values in financial remedy cases. Clients should consider the potential implications of seeking additional expert evidence, particularly when the court deems it unnecessary for achieving a fair outcome. This case illustrates the court's commitment to balancing the interests of justice with the practicalities of litigation. 

Jamie Beland & Minoli Vehella