In financial remedy proceedings, expert valuation of businesses can make or break a case. But what happens when one party no longer agrees with the expert they jointly instructed? That was the question at the heart of JMD v SPD [2025] EWFC 154 (B), where the husband sought to challenge the Single Joint Expert (SJE)’s valuation of his business and persuade the court to allow him to instruct his own.
The case is a valuable reminder of how carefully the court guards the integrity and efficiency of financial remedy litigation—especially when it comes to expert evidence.
Background: A Joint Expert Disputed
The parties jointly instructed a forensic accountant to value the husband’s property development business. The SJE’s valuation (at £18.2 million) differed sharply from the husband’s own expectations, largely because the expert chose not to accept the valuations of the company’s property assets from a separate property valuer. The SJE took the view that these incomplete developments would not be sold at a forced sale value and based their assessment on full, completed values.
The husband’s position: this approach inflated the company’s value and failed to reflect the true economic reality. He argued that this divergence—plus the failure to communicate with the property valuer—was so significant that it justified a fresh expert.
The Legal Framework: Daniels v Walker and Beyond
District Judge Parker carefully applied the principles from Daniels v Walker [2000] and other authorities, including GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187 and Cosgrove v Pattison. The key points?
- A party may seek permission to instruct a further expert only where the original SJE’s report is deficient in a way that can’t be addressed through questions or cross-examination.
- It is a discretionary exercise, and courts will consider factors such as:
- The importance and centrality of the issue;
- Proportionality and costs;
- The ability to challenge the existing report;
- Whether there would be an "understandable sense of grievance" if permission were refused.
In this case, DJ Parker found the SJE had disregarded the valuations from the property expert—an expert whose input was supposed to form the foundation of the business valuation. That, said the judge, was “concerning” and justified a second expert.
What This Means for Practitioners
- Don’t treat SJE reports as untouchable—but tread carefully.
Courts are open to allowing further expert evidence where there's a real risk of injustice, especially if a joint expert has stepped outside their remit or failed to consult appropriately.
- Shadow expert opinions are not enough.
You’ll need more than dissatisfaction or a critique. Courts will expect a structured approach: questions first, application second.
- Proportionality still matters.
The husband in JMD v SPD was ordered to fund the second expert himself, a reminder that if you ask for more evidence, you may foot the bill.
- Coordination between experts is key.
This case shows the risks of siloed reporting—where one expert disregards another’s work. Joint expert coordination can prevent disputes later on.
Conclusion
JMD v SPD reminds us that even a single joint expert can get it wrong—or at least raise enough doubt to justify a second opinion. But courts will protect the discipline of the Daniels framework, requiring a structured, proportionate approach. The lesson for family lawyers? If you want a new expert, you’ll need a better reason than just a bad result.
