The case NW v BH [2024] EWFC 118 provides critical insights into the role of expert evidence and the challenges of financial remedy proceedings. The case specifically addresses issues related to Single Joint Experts (SJE), as outlined in the landmark case of Daniels v Walker, and highlights the procedural hurdles and strategic implications for parties involved in complex financial disputes.

Background of the Case

In this financial remedy case, NW (the wife) and BH (the husband) had been engaged in a protracted dispute over various assets, including the family home, business interests, and inheritance claims. A key contention was the valuation of a property, agreed at £1.1 million during a pre-trial review. However, on the eve of the final hearing, the husband sought to introduce a new valuation, lowering the value to £800,000, in an attempt to bolster his financial position.

This last-minute application to vary the valuation, without following the proper protocol for introducing a second expert under the Daniels v Walker principle, put the court in a difficult position. Recorder Rhys Taylor ultimately rejected the application and held the parties to the previously agreed valuation, setting the stage for the court's determination of the financial split between the parties.

Key Legal Issues

1. Single Joint Expert (SJE) and Procedural Missteps:
   • The husband’s failure to comply with the Daniels v Walker procedure was a central issue. This procedure allows parties to seek permission to appoint a second expert if they disagree with the conclusions of the Single Joint Expert. However, in this case, the husband had agreed to the valuation and failed to follow proper steps to introduce a competing report.
   • The court emphasised that deviations from procedural requirements, especially at the last minute, would not be tolerated unless there were compelling reasons. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules in financial remedy cases.
2. Valuation of Assets and the Agreed Valuation:
   • The husband’s attempt to introduce a significantly lower valuation was viewed as a tactical move to reduce his financial obligations. The court upheld the £1.1 million valuation, which had been agreed upon by both parties, highlighting the importance of early and binding agreements in financial remedy proceedings.
3. Non-Disclosure and Misleading Evidence:
   • Throughout the case, the court found that the husband’s disclosure was incomplete and at times misleading. This lack of transparency severely undermined his credibility and contributed to the court’s decision to hold him to the agreed valuation. The court’s handling of this issue underscores the importance of full and frank disclosure in financial remedy cases.

Key Points for Practitioners

1. Adherence to the Daniels v Walker Protocol:
   • This case serves as a reminder that when challenging the findings of a Single Joint Expert, parties must strictly adhere to the procedural framework set out in Daniels v Walker. Seeking a second opinion without proper justification or following the correct process can weaken a party’s case and lead to procedural disadvantages.
2. The Importance of Early Agreements:
   • Once a valuation is agreed upon, it becomes binding unless there is a valid legal basis to challenge it. Parties should carefully consider the implications of agreeing to valuations or other key financial metrics during proceedings, as these agreements can significantly shape the final outcome.
3. Impact of Non-Disclosure:
   • The court’s adverse view of the husband’s lack of transparency is a cautionary tale for parties in financial remedy cases. Non-disclosure or attempts to mislead the court can result in unfavourable judgments, and parties should be mindful that full disclosure is not just a requirement but a strategic advantage.
4. Judicial Discretion in Complex Financial Disputes:
   • The court’s decision to uphold the agreed valuation despite the husband’s late attempt to introduce new evidence reflects the broad discretion that judges have in managing complex financial cases. Practitioners should be prepared for judicial decisions that favour procedural fairness over last-minute tactical manoeuvres.

Conclusion

The case of NW v BH [2024] EWFC 118 illustrates the complexities of financial remedy disputes and the critical role that Single Joint Expert evidence plays in determining asset valuations. For practitioners, this case is a clear reminder to adhere to established procedures and ensure that all actions taken during proceedings are strategic, timely, and transparent. Failure to do so, as demonstrated in this case, can lead to adverse outcomes and financial disadvantage for clients.