When a single joint expert's valuation lands badly in financial remedy proceedings, you are not stuck with it — but nor can you simply buy a friendlier figure. A Daniels v Walker application asks the court's permission to rely on your own expert, and courts police the route hard: 2025's leading refusal turned on proportionality, not merit. This guide covers the test, the Cosgrove factors, the cheaper routes, and the real costs and risks.
On This Page
Second opinions on the court's terms
Financial remedy proceedings on divorce turn on valuations — the house, a business, the pensions — and the modern default is a single joint expert instructed by both parties, as our divorce valuation guide explains. One report, jointly paid for, in place of duelling experts. The efficiency is real; so is the discomfort when the single figure fundamentally hurts your case and there is no second opinion in the room.
An expert jointly instructed by both parties under FPR Part 25 to report on a question the court must decide — a business valuation, a property value, a pension share. The SJE owes their duty to the court, not to either client, and their report is usually the only expert evidence the court permits.
Daniels v Walker is the escape route, named for the Court of Appeal decision that created it. It is not a right to a second expert — it is a structured application for the court's permission, granted where refusing would be unjust and refused where the challenge is really disappointment wearing procedural clothes.
What Is a Daniels v Walker Application?
In Daniels v Walker [2000] EWCA Civ 508, Lord Woolf MR held that a single joint expert's report is the first step in expert evidence, not necessarily the last: a party dissatisfied for reasons that are "not fanciful" may be permitted to obtain their own evidence. Financial remedy practice adopted the mechanism wholesale — it now runs through FPR Part 25, the same rules that police expert evidence in child arrangement cases, and the same logic applies in civil litigation under the CPR.
Permission to instruct your own expert and put that evidence before the court alongside the SJE's report. It does not remove the SJE's report, and it does not decide whose figure wins — it opens the question so the judge hears both.
The Two-Stage Legal Test
Stage one: your reasons must be "not fanciful" — genuine, arguable concerns about methodology, instructions or material errors, rather than disappointment with an unfavourable figure or a tactical wish to delay. Stage two: the further evidence must be necessary — FPR 25.4(3) permits expert evidence only where it is "necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings", assessed through the Cosgrove factors and the overriding objective. Most applications fail at the second stage, not the first.
When Can You Challenge a Single Joint Expert Report?
- Methodology genuinely disputed between professional schools — an earnings basis against an asset basis, for example.
- Instructions that were wrong or incomplete, or material information that never reached the expert.
- Demonstrable errors that survived the written-questions process.
- An amount at stake that dwarfs the cost of a second opinion.
Timing weighs as heavily as substance. In GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187, Peel J refused an application made three weeks before trial: however arguable the concern, an application that detonates the timetable will fail. Move promptly once the report lands, and exhaust the written-questions route first — a challenge that skipped FPR 25.10 invites the answer that a cheaper fix existed.
The Cosgrove Factors
| Factor | What the Court Asks |
|---|---|
| Nature of the issues | Is this the kind of question on which experts legitimately differ? |
| Number of issues | How much of the case does the disputed evidence touch? |
| Reason for the new expert | Substantive concern, or dissatisfaction with the number? |
| Amount at stake | Does the sum justify the additional evidence? |
| Effect on the trial | Can the hearing survive the extra evidence intact? |
| Delay in applying | Did the party move promptly after the report? |
| Delay a new expert causes | Meetings, joint statements, replies — is there time? |
| Special features | Anything unusual pulling either way. |
| Overall justice | Standing back, what does fairness to both parties require? |
BY v GC: The Latest Judicial Guidance
BY v GC [2025] EWFC 226 is the current cautionary tale. PwC, jointly instructed, had valued the husband's business interests; his rival report from FRP Advisory came in around £7.1 million lower on the principal company. Nicholas Allen KC accepted that the husband's reasons were not fanciful — and refused the application anyway.
The reasoning is the modern doctrine in miniature. Business valuations are "a broad, or even very broad, guide" to fairness, not an exercise in accounting accuracy; admitting a rival expert would have forced the wife to instruct her own, made the trial date unworkable and left the SJE answering one side's case. The proportionate alternative — sending updated information to the SJE for comment — did the work at a fraction of the cost. Merit alone does not carry a Daniels v Walker application; proportionality decides them.
What Are the Options for Challenging Expert Evidence?
A full application is the last of four routes, not the first. Written questions under FPR 25.10 need no permission and resolve most methodology and error complaints. A shadow expert — advising you privately, never seen by the court — needs no permission either, and sharpens both the questions and any eventual application. An SJE addendum deals with events since the report. The full application stands at the end of that ladder, for the case where the disagreement is fundamental.
Challenge Routes Compared
| Route | Permission Needed? | Cost Profile | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written questions (FPR 25.10) | No | Lowest — solicitor and expert time on answers | Methodology queries, factual errors |
| Shadow expert | No — the report stays private (BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11) | Moderate — a privately funded expert | Testing the SJE's work, framing questions |
| SJE addendum or update | Sometimes | Moderate — often shared | New information since the report |
| Full Daniels v Walker application | Yes — FPR 25.4 | Highest — new report, contested hearing, possibly the other side's expert too | Fundamental methodological dispute |
Costs and Risks of the Application
Precise figures depend on the expert's field and the size of the estate — business valuations in high-value cases sit at the expensive end — so treat any quoted range with suspicion. What is predictable is the structure, and it stacks: a new expert's report, a contested application hearing, and then, if you succeed, equality of arms — the other party will usually be permitted their own expert too. Success can double the expert-evidence bill for everyone, which is precisely why judges weigh proportionality so hard.
Where the Money Goes
Three exposures decide whether the fight is worth it: the gap between the SJE's figure and your expert's honest view; the risk of an adverse costs order if the application reads as tactical; and the delay cost of a vacated hearing. BY v GC refused permission despite a seven-figure gap — proportionality and the trial date outweighed it. Our financial remedy fee structure is set out openly.
Questions about challenging a single joint expert
What is the legal test for a Daniels v Walker application?
Two stages. Your reasons for rejecting the SJE's report must be "not fanciful" — genuine and arguable, not mere disappointment. Then the further evidence must be necessary to resolve the proceedings under FPR 25.4(3), weighed through the Cosgrove factors and the overriding objective.
Can I instruct my own expert without court permission in financial remedy proceedings?
As a shadow expert, yes — BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11 confirms no permission is needed for private advice. But their report cannot go before the court, and cross-examining the SJE on it needs care. Formal reliance requires a successful Daniels v Walker application.
How much does a Daniels v Walker application cost?
There is no honest fixed range — it depends on the expert's discipline and the estate. The components are predictable: your expert's report, a contested hearing, and if you win, usually the other side's expert as well, plus adverse-costs risk if the court reads the application as tactical.
What happened in BY v GC [2025] EWFC 226?
The husband challenged PwC's jointly instructed business valuations with a rival report roughly £7.1 million lower. The judge accepted his reasons were not fanciful but refused permission: valuations are a broad guide, the timetable could not absorb duelling experts, and updating the SJE was the proportionate fix.
When is the best time to make a Daniels v Walker application?
Promptly after the SJE report arrives, once written questions have failed. Delay is itself a Cosgrove factor: in GA v EL the application came three weeks before trial and was refused largely for that reason. The closer the hearing, the heavier proportionality weighs against you.
What does "not fanciful" mean in this context?
A genuine, arguable basis for doubting the report — disputed methodology, flawed instructions, material errors. It is a deliberately low threshold, but it filters out dissatisfaction with the number and applications made to buy delay. Most refusals happen at the necessity stage instead.
What is the difference between a shadow expert and a second expert?
A shadow expert advises you privately, needs no permission, and never appears in evidence. A second expert requires the court's permission through a Daniels v Walker application; their report becomes evidence, and the other party will usually then be allowed an expert of their own.
Can a Daniels v Walker application be used for property valuations?
Yes — the mechanism covers any SJE field. In practice property disputes usually resolve through FPR 25.10 questions or an updated market appraisal, and where the argument is really about ownership shares rather than value, a declaration of trust analysis comes first.
Tell us what the report says, what you think it got wrong and when your final hearing is listed. We will tell you whether the challenge is arguable — and which of the four routes fits it.
Get Expert Advice