How do you divide a £263 million fortune when over £200 million of it is tied up in private companies? In BR v BR [2025] EWFC 88, Mr Justice Peel was faced with exactly that question—offering a masterclass in handling complex business valuations in financial remedy proceedings.

This was no ordinary divorce. Over a 30-year marriage, the husband (H) built a tech empire from scratch while the wife (W) supported him and later challenged the value he ascribed to his business empire. The case turned on one key issue: how much were the businesses worth—and could the wife's team challenge the agreed Single Joint Expert (SJE) valuation?

SJE Valuations: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?

In financial remedy cases, parties often instruct a Single Joint Expert (SJE)—typically an accountant—to value business interests. This approach:

• Saves time and cost by avoiding duelling experts.
• Ensures impartiality and transparency.
• Provides a common evidential base for the court.

In BR v BR, the SJE was instructed early on, producing a detailed (and expensive—over £1 million!) report on C Ltd, D Ltd, and E Ltd. W later attempted to undermine the findings using her own “shadow” expert. The judge was unimpressed, emphasising that:

“Expert evidence is only admissible with the court’s permission under Part 25 FPR. You cannot sneak it in via witness statements or offers.”

This serves as a critical reminder: Don’t rely on backdoor expert opinion. If you want to challenge the SJE, apply under Daniels v Walker and do it early.

Why Valuing Private Companies Is So Difficult

Justice Peel quoted Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050 to describe business valuations as “among the most fragile valuations which can be obtained.” And for good reason:

• No obvious market exists for many private companies.
• Share value depends heavily on who’s buying, and under what conditions.
• Even small adjustments in projections or multipliers can swing the valuation by tens of millions.

In BR v BR, H argued for a buyout based on the SJE’s valuation. W insisted the businesses were worth significantly more—but her claim lacked evidential support. The court accepted the SJE’s figures, increasing the valuation slightly to reflect a corrected comparable sale.

Clean Break vs. Wells Sharing

W proposed a Wells v Wells sharing structure, where she'd keep shares and cash out later. The court declined:

• There was a high risk of ongoing conflict between the parties.
• H’s role in the businesses was irreplaceable—splitting ownership would destabilise the companies.
• Wells sharing would require costly ongoing oversight, with uncertain value and high legal and commercial risk.

Justice Peel preferred a clean break, ordering H to buy out W’s interests based on the adjusted SJE values. He stressed that a clean break is both desirable and achievable, particularly where the party retaining the business can raise funds.

Key Points for Family Law Practitioners

1. Use SJE evidence wisely – It remains the gold standard. If you want to challenge it, seek permission early under Daniels v Walker.
2. Don’t smuggle expert views into witness statements or open offers – They won’t be admitted.
3. Wells sharing is the exception, not the rule – It should be avoided unless a clean break is clearly impracticable.
4. Valuation fragility doesn’t mean unreliability – Judges will accept SJE valuations unless there’s a compelling reason not to.
5. Commercial reality matters – The impact of share dilution, liquidity discounts, and control rights all weigh heavily on the outcome.

Final Thought

BR v BR reminds us that when divorce meets boardroom, family courts are ready—but they demand rigour, realism, and procedural discipline. If you're advising clients with complex business interests, this case should be essential reading.