Forsburg v. Stubbs [2019] FCCA 1884 (Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge Betts, 12 June 2019) – link

In family law proceedings, following a report of a single agreed expert on valuation, the wife sought to adduce evidence of another expert in an adversarial manner. The court refused the application, on the grounds that questions should have been put to the single agreed expert prior to making the application. 

“It seems to me the court would greatly benefit from having much more information from the single expert in relation to those specific deductions, and no doubt this is a matter that will be explored at the trial.

As I have indicated, it is an irony in this case that Valuer D’s valuation in fact comes in so close to Valuer A’s valuation in “gross” terms. Valuer D do not express any particular opinions in relation to those deductions. They simply don’t allow for them. Obviously, there is a basis upon which questions could be put to the single expert in this respect. The court’s view would be that the wife ought to have liberty to ask questions of the single expert within a reasonable timeframe but it would not be appropriate to provide the Valuer D shadow valuation to the single expert as the wife seeks.”