Adduce Own Evidence

I used this forum when I was going through my own divorce (well, the previous incarnation of this forum) and think its a really brilliant space for very worried people to come and gain, usually, support and advice.

There aren't many of these forums around and this was, with David Terrys input as well, a good idea and I'm really pleased to see its still here and popular.

I've been learning about family law as I find it so fascinating and joined the campaign for no fault divorce.

I have a quick question. In initial hearing, a valuation of a property is ordered and the sought. A surveyor is agreed between parties and reports back.

One party decides they don't agree and seeks leave to adduce their own evidence... is this allowed? I've just seen an acquaintance discuss this and it made me curious as to whether a court, after making the order at Initial Hearing, would then agree at FDR to accept evidence adduced by either party separately to that on the basis the valuation doesn't suit them (means there's no divisible capital it would seem).

 Short of re-doing my law degree (clearly I, like 70% of graduates did not pursue a legal career) any advixe on learning more about family law?

If a court directs a joint valuation, a valuer is jointly instructed and prepares a report then that is the valuation evidence. There would be no end to litigation if one party could simply ignore a joint report and adduce their own evidence. It is always possible to call the valuer to give evidence and to cross examine that valuer orally and under oath but it is very uncommon for this to happen (at least in the case of valuations of property).

When all is said and done most properties have a value which is relatively easily ascertained within a certain range. You might think a property is worth, say, £600,000 but a surveyor who values it for mortgage purposes might value it at say £550,000. How much it is actually 'worth' ultimately depends upon what someone is prepared to pay for it.

Thank you so much. I figured this would be the case as, as you say, what then prevents the other party saying they don't agree and getting their own and so on until everyone is tearing their hair out.

I believe there are some complexities around the value due to building works, which is why a court ordered the valuation to begin with, but my acquaintance seemed a bit worried and it struck me as very odd.

I appreciate your response and common sense, easy to understand answer!

It seems after an hour the judge adjourned and told them they must apply for another valuation if they want one.ans have another FDR.

I believe the money at stake here isn't vast but is the difference between a small amount of equity and large amount of negative equity.

I'm surprised, none the less, as all told the costs for this have already been disproportionately high.

Felt a bit sorry for him today but just wanted to thank you again and update you on what happened

Sounds as though the judge was exasperated. Presumably that was because if the only difference is between a small amount of equity and negative equity spending money on legal costs is disproportionate to the little money actually at issue. Making them spend further money and repeating the FDR should make them focus their minds on this. Litigation should be a matter of economics. Spending £5,000 in legal costs makes sense to recover a debt of £100,000. Spending £5,000 on legal costs does not make sense if there is a dispute about the debt being worth £4,000 or £6,000. They may be in a similar position.