Henschel & Sartre (No 3)

In the matter of Henschel & Sartre (No 3), the primary issue before the court was whether leave should be granted to the husband to adduce separate adversarial evidence from his proposed expert witness, Mr MM. The court also needed to determine whether to order updated valuations from the single joint expert, Mr LL. The husband, Mr Sartre, sought to call Mr MM, an expert valuer, to give evidence in relation to the valuation of certain properties. The wife, Ms Henschel, opposed this application, arguing that there was no substantial body of contrary opinion to warrant the appointment of a separate adversarial expert. The court examined the valuation methods used by both experts, which differed significantly, resulting in a $4,900,000 difference in valuation. The court considered the rules governing expert evidence and the importance of case management, but also recognised the paramount importance of the interests of justice. The court concluded that in light of the substantial difference in valuation methodologies and outcomes, leave should be granted to the husband to call Mr MM as a separate adversarial expert.

The court also considered the wife's application for updated valuations from the single joint expert, Mr LL. The property in question was under construction at the time of the initial valuation, and Mr LL had not inspected the property. The wife submitted documents that supported an updated valuation, and the court found it appropriate to revalue the property. The court ordered that Mr LL and Mr MM should confer and prepare a joint statement on the agreed and disagreed issues, reasons for disagreement, and any actions to resolve outstanding issues. The order also required the experts to deliver a copy of the joint statement to each party.