By and -

Key decisions

  • Henschel & Sartre (No. 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F
  • Snow & Curran (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1120
  • Gresham (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1090
  • Pickford [2023] FedCFamC1F 1087


Valuations of rural acreage differed by $4,900,000 – leave granted to adduce adversarial evidence where single expert applied comparative sales method and adversarial expert adopted a summation method

In Henschel & Sartre (No.3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1081 (15 December 2023), Berman J heard countervailing interim applications in respect of valuation issues. A single expert (‘Mr LL’) valued an interest in rural acreage (‘the Town O property’) via a comparative sales method at $7,750,000. The husband had engaged an adversarial expert (‘Mr MM’) who adopted a ‘summation method’ which ‘focused on differing land types and the dollar value per hectare’ and said that the property was worth $12,650,000 (at [48] & [58]). The husband sought leave to adduce the adversarial report as evidence.

Berman J said (from [15]):

‘Separate adversarial evidence can only be called with the Court’s permission subject to three exceptions to the tendering of further evidence from another expert witness on an issue already addressed by a single expert witness, namely:

  • If there is a substantial body of opinion contrary to any opinion given by the single expert witness …
  • If another expert witness knows of matters not known to the single expert witness … necessary for determining the issue.
  • If there is another special reason for adducing evidence from another expert witness.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more