BR v BR

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties married in 1998 following a period of cohabitation and separated in 2023, marking a relationship exceeding 25 years. They have two children. During the marriage, the husband ("H") developed several highly successful businesses, with the wife ("W") providing full support in her role within the marriage. It is undisputed that both parties made equal contributions to the marriage and family. The case is prima facie one for equal division of assets, subject to potential arguments concerning liquidity and structure.

W filed Form A in August 2023, and the case was allocated to High Court level, reserved for the judge hearing this matter. W’s accountants submitted extensive questions and information requests, to which H responded through solicitors, committing to provide disclosure within his finalised Form E. Forms E were exchanged on 27 December 2023; H’s Form E appeared detailed and comprehensive but did not fully satisfy all of W’s earlier information requests.

H did not file a questionnaire, whereas W submitted a notably lengthy questionnaire of 81 pages containing over 500 questions, primarily focused on the businesses, prepared with assistance from W’s accountant to aid in valuation.

At the First Appointment hearing on 17 January 2024, counsel for both parties initially agreed to instruct separate sole experts to value the substantial business interests. The judge proposed instead the instruction of a Single Joint Expert (SJE), and by the hearing start, the parties agreed to proceed on that basis. The judge indicated a written judgment would follow due to points of principle arising.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should direct the instruction of a Single Joint Expert (SJE) rather than permitting each party to instruct separate sole experts to value the business interests.
2. The legal principles governing the use of expert evidence under Family Procedure Rules (FPR) Part 25 and Practice Direction 25D in financial remedy proceedings.
3. The justification required to depart from the default position of instructing a SJE.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by confirming that expert evidence on value, tax, and liquidity was necessary under FPR 25.4(3) to assist in resolving the proceedings. It then reviewed the relevant procedural rules, including FPR 25.11(1) and Practice Direction 25D, which state that wherever possible expert evidence should be provided by a Single Joint Expert (SJE) rather than multiple solely instructed experts.

The judge highlighted the deliberate inclusion of the phrase "wherever possible" in family proceedings rules, distinguishing them from civil procedure rules, thereby underscoring the strong policy preference for SJEs.

Drawing on authoritative commentary and case law, notably J v J, the court established that the default position is to direct a SJE and that the threshold for departing from this is high, requiring substantial justification.

The court enumerated several practical and procedural advantages of a SJE, including cost efficiency, greater independence and impartiality, consistency of instructions and information, and streamlined disclosure processes. It also noted that parties retain the ability to instruct shadow experts and to question the SJE’s report, preserving procedural fairness.

Furthermore, the court observed that if parties remain dissatisfied, they may apply under Daniels v Walker to adduce their own expert evidence, but such cases are expected to be rare. The court rejected the notion that instructing a SJE inevitably leads to multiple experts and increased costs.

In the instant case, the court found no good reason to depart from the default rule. Given the parties’ conflicting views on business valuation and the extensive questionnaire prepared by W, the SJE route was deemed more likely to produce a reliable and agreed evidential basis for the Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing. The SJE would also reduce the need for the voluminous questionnaire, as the expert could determine necessary documents and information.

Holding and Implications

The court directed the instruction of a Single Joint Expert (SJE) to value the substantial business interests in this case.

This decision affirms the default procedural approach under Family Procedure Rules and Practice Directions favoring SJEs to promote efficiency, impartiality, and cost-effectiveness in expert evidence within financial remedy proceedings. The ruling directly affects the parties by requiring collaborative engagement with the SJE and limits the use of separately instructed experts unless exceptional justification is shown. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application and reinforcement of existing rules and principles.