High Court prefers Single Joint Expert evidence (… again)

Continuing clear message from the Court on SJE’s

In Madden v Westland Group Ltd & others (CHP 25/0037) (17.09.26), Deemster Corlett has reiterated the message that the Court prefers the evidence of a Single Joint Expert (SJE) to that of competing experts.

The issue was simple: whether a direction for expert evidence should be for an SJE or two competing experts, with a joint expert meeting to narrow issues.

The expert report (or reports) would be required on the valuation of Westland Group Limited (“Westland”), prior to a mediation.

The Claimant, a retired employee of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Westland, argued that the parties had already agreed a mechanism to value the Claimant’s B ordinary shares and that, in the event that a valuation could not be agreed, the appointment of an SJE accorded with that agreement. The Claimant argued that the Defendants had unreasonably refused to operate an exit mechanism mandated by the Articles to purchase the Claimant’s shares upon his retirement, and that the valuation of those shares was likely to exceed £5.5 million.

Court’s analysis

In its analysis, the Court referred to:

• Rule 8.51 (expert evidence to be restricted: “to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings”);
• Rule 8.57 (“Where 2 or more parties wish to submit expert evidence on a particular issue, the court may direct that the evidence on that issue is to given by one expert only”)
• O’Neill v Phillips [1999] WLR 1092 (an oppression-related case, where Lord Hoffmann stated at page 1107, paragraph F to H as to the approach to be taken in these type of disputes that: “… The objective should be economy and expedition, even if this carries the possibility of a rough edge for one side or the other (and both parties in this respect take the same risk) compared with a more elaborate procedure …”);
• Stellantis Auto SAS v Autoliv AB [2024] 2 All ER Com 1079: (“… an expert who is paid by one party, receives instructions from one party, hears only that party’s version of the events and communicates only with that party and their legal representatives (who will have employed them) is liable to be influenced by that party. By contrast, a joint expert is paid by both parties, receives joint instructions, hears from both parties and communicates with both of them openly. All else being equal, the joint expert is more likely to be able to provide an objective and balanced view of the issues”): Deemster Corlett noted that this: “chimes with my own experience in these matters. I realise of course that experts have an overriding duty to the court, but I agree with Acting Deemster Gough [in Wickers v Humbles & others (ORD 17/0043) (25.06.25) at § [696]] that in certain cases the lack of objectivity is evident in rival expert reports”; and
• Hollington on The Unfair Prejudice Remedy (chapter 7 at 7-80) (“The general principle therefore is that, if the parties have made provision for what should happen in the circumstances which have arisen, such as a buyout triggered by removal from office, those terms bind the parties…”).

The Defendants had appointed an expert and had offered to share the expert report on a WP basis prior to the mediation. But Deemster Corlett considered this: “perhaps not the most helpful approach to resolving this dispute”.

Deemster Corlett noted the following points:

“[§ 19]… the value of the case is not necessarily determinative of the issue of whether there should be a [SJE]…

[§ 21] It all depends of course on the facts and context of each particular case…

[§ 22] Accountants often put forward different methodologies for valuing companies. I think the benefit however of a [SJE] is that he/she can discuss these various methodologies and determine which is the most helpful and appropriate without taking into account who is instructing him/her”.

Conclusion

The Court concluded as follows (at §§ 23-24):

“23 … the appointment of a [SJE] is consistent with the agreed mechanism set out in the Articles… The Articles do not envisage the instruction of separate experts. I of course accept that the provisions in the Articles are not determinative, but in my view it informs the exercise of the court’s case management discretion. In my view, in particular, the appointment of a [SJE] is likely to assist in the mediation process and is far more likely to lead to a settlement of this dispute. There would then be an enormous saving [in] costs, time and stress for the parties, and an enormous saving of court time.

24. I consider that if this matter does unfortunately proceed to trial, the court will be assisted by a [SJE]. The court will be relieved of having to grapple with competing expert evidence and, as I have just said, the [SJE] will discuss various methodologies and arrive at that which is most suitable and helpful to the court”.

Note for practitioners: The clear message from the Court remains that SJE’s are to be preferred to competing experts. This message is not new: see, for example, Coren Law, Deemsters’ Warning on Excessive Written Material (01.12.25)

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man civil procedure, or on litigation relating to Isle of Man company law, contact Coren Law.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.

Image credit: Public Domain Vectors