Inci
© 2017
Apr
isive analysis
7 Intangible Busin
il 2017
About this
This issue has
Forbes, Stuar
Intangible Bu
experience ga
over the last 2
production o
testimony inc
12 occasions.
others involve
in particular f
and judges.
The authors’
global accou
profits and ex
provided inde
involving issu
However, alth
their specific
what follows
general appli
presentation
s of topical is
ness | All rights re
s issue
s been co-aut
rt Whitwell and
usiness, based
ained from giv
25 years. This
f over 100 exp
cluding under
. This article a
ed in the disp
from the parti
specific exper
ntancy, marke
xcessive or wa
ependent exp
ues of both lia
hough this art
expertise and
can properly
cation in the p
of effective ex
To
ssues
eserved
hored by Thay
d Paul Cliff, fro
d on their foren
ving expert ev
work has invo
pert reports, an
r cross-examin
lso reflects th
ute resolution
es, lawyers, ar
rtise is in the f
eting, valuatio
asted costs. Th
pert evidence i
bility and qua
icle draws mo
d experience, m
be regarded a
preparation a
xpert evidence
op ti
yne
om
nsic
idence
olved the
nd oral
nation on
e views of
n process,
rbitrators
ields of
on, lost
hey have
n disputes
ntum.
ostly on
much of
as of
nd
e.
ps fo
e
1
u
I
b
o
p
o
b
o
t
u
a
t
I
d
a
e
t
c
o
a
h
t
a
w
or eff
vide
Top
1. Expert
understo
t is important
be understood
opposing expe
parties; media
or judges invo
be sophisticat
offer, significa
to, but differen
understand th
and without g
they are alread
n many of ou
discounting fu
amount has b
explained by r
tribunals and
cases the first
opposing expe
a particular an
has been to id
to be ruled on
assumptions,
would be refle
fectiv
nce
p tips for effectiv
t evidenc
ood by va
t to remember
d by various a
erts; instructin
ators but most
lved. This is n
ted audiences
nt experience
nt from, the ex
he expert evide
oing over too
dy familiar.
r cases, explai
uture cash flow
een a concept
reference to fir
High Court jud
principles we
erts. In such ca
nd practical m
entify the key
. Once a ruling
the parties we
ected in a DCF
ve ex
ve expert evidenc
ce has to
arious au
r that expert e
udiences. In p
ng and oppos
t importantly
not easy, as the
s which may h
e and skills in a
xpert evidence
ence from the
much ground
ining the conc
ws (DCF) to a s
t which has ha
rst principles t
dges, whereas
ere already kno
ases we have
method of reso
y disputed DCF
g has been giv
ere able to ag
F calculation.
xpert
ce | Thought Piec
be
diences
evidence has t
particular:
ing lawyers; th
the arbitrator
ey will genera
ave, or may
areas related
e. They want t
eir perspective
d with which
cept of
single present
ad to be
to arbitral
s in the same
own to
also seen tha
olving a disput
F assumptions
ven on those
ree how this
t
1ces
o
he
rs
lly
to
e
t
t
te
s
© 2017
Ap
2
It i
ex
mo
co
to
pro
ev
On
un
op
sh
ex
the
ex
bo
co
Su
co
or
an
as
flo
far
3
Ex
tho
cro
inf
op
on
ex
wh
In
ha
pre
wa
da
7 Intangible Busin
pril 2017
. Be as si
s the authors’
pressed in acc
ore effective t
mplex manne
support the e
oper perspect
idence and an
n the other ha
navoidable. No
pen with simp
ould have a c
ample, DCF ca
e future are of
perts. Howeve
oth in their imp
nceptual sho
uch DCF calcu
ntext, for exam
to deal with is
alysis. Howev
a valuation b
ows, is more lik
r as the calcul
. Indepe
pert evidence
orough, well i
oss checked. D
formation pre
pinions diverge
n the reasons f
pert evidence
hether written
one case on w
d made signif
esentation of
as unable to e
amaging to the
ness | All rights re
imple as
’ experience th
curate but sim
han those exp
er. Keeping in
evidence helps
tive on the rea
ny challenges
nd, a degree o
onetheless, it
ly expressed o
lear summary
alculations pr
ften utilised b
er these can b
plementation
rtcomings.
lations might
mple as an alt
ssues particul
ver a simply ex
ased on a mu
kely to be eas
ations are con
ndent, re
e should be ind
nformed and
Dispute resolu
sented, asses
e then resolut
for the opinio
e should be we
n or oral.
which we work
ficant arithme
important fig
xplain this in c
e credibility of
eserved
possible
hat expert opi
mple terms are
pressed in an u
mind a few si
s an expert to
asonableness
to it.
of complexity
will usually be
opinions, and
y and conclusi
rojected indefi
y financial val
be daunting to
or adjustmen
be useful in th
ternative valua
larly suitable f
xpressed alter
ltiple of one y
ier to use and
ncerned.
elevant a
dependent, re
supported, ba
ution is usually
sed and teste
tion will most
ns expressed.
ell articulated
ked, the oppo
etical errors in
ures in his rep
cross examina
f his evidence
e
nions
e generally
unnecessarily
mple pillars
keep a
of that
may well be
e sensible to
all reports
on. For
initely into
uation
o the layman,
nt and in their
he right
ation method
for DCF
rnative, such
year’s cash
work with so
nd clear
elevant, clear,
acked up and
y based on
d. If expert
likely focus
Therefore,
and robust,
osing expert
the
port. As he
ation this was
overall.
y
4
E
e
d
o
v
r
W
w
t
h
e
t
5
E
e
E
t
d
p
t
t
t
e
d
s
a
n
s
e
m
Top
4. Keep w
Expert evidenc
expertise held
drawn in to giv
outside, their o
vulnerable to a
ramification su
We have seen
was persuaded
that technolog
his experience
examination o
to the effective
5. Sober
Expert evidenc
expressed. In a
England, expe
tactics which m
dispute. Opini
presented in e
that we have r
that they often
to wade throu
exchanged bet
dispute. Whilst
submissions”)
aggression, po
no assistance
same is equall
experts, some
material which
p tips for effectiv
within the
ce should be c
, not on the ed
ving opinions
own expertise
attack, which
uch as damag
where an opp
d also to give
gy, where valu
e. That left him
on valuation is
eness of his ex
and care
ce should alwa
an adversarial
rts should not
may be adopt
ons should be
xtreme terms
eceived from
n find it tediou
gh aggressive
tween law firm
t such letters
might satisfy
oint scoring an
in writing an a
y true of corre
or all of which
h is placed bef
ve expert evidenc
e experti
confined to th
dge or outside
on the edge o
e, this is likely t
could well the
ge to overall cr
posing expert
an opinion on
uation was on
m open to dam
ssues, which w
xpert evidence
eful term
ays be soberly
l legal system,
t get caught u
ted by others i
e firm, and fai
s or aggressive
arbitrators an
us and a waste
e self-serving le
ms acting for t
(or “backward
clients in the
nd posturing i
award or judg
espondence b
h can find itse
fore the court
ce | Thought Piec
ise held
e scope of the
e. If an expert
of, or even
to be more
en have furthe
redibility.
in technology
n the value of
the margins o
maging cross
was detriment
e overall.
s
y and carefully
, such as for
p in aggressiv
nvolved in the
r, but not
ely. Feedback
nd judges is
e of their time
etters
the parties to a
d facing
short term,
s generally of
ment. The
between
elf in the
t or arbitrator.
2ces
e
is
er
y
of
tal
y
ve
e
a
© 2017
Ap
6
Ex
tha
no
pro
ex
ev
be
co
jud
cu
Pra
su
an
Th
sh
tri
pra
en
dis
7 Intangible Busin
pril 2017
. Follow
pert evidence
at can arise in
ot least with be
ocess. CPR Pa
perts as to the
idence. Prior t
een long estab
urts, most no
dgment in 199
rrent general
actice Directio
pplements CP
d should alwa
“2.1 Experprodupress
2.2 Experobjectheir eof an
2.3 Experincludopinio
2.4 Exper (a) wexper (b) whopinioinsuff
2.5 If, aftechangof viepartieto the
he central thre
ould be impa
bunal in unde
actice, a lot of
gages with, a
spute (likely to
ness | All rights re
CPR Guid
e should take a
n the conduct
eing instructe
art 35 regulate
e nature and e
to that the gen
blished in vario
tably by Mr Ju
93 relating to T
requirements
on 35 – Expert
PR Part 35, fol
ays be borne i
rt evidence shouct of the expesures of litigati
rts should assictive, unbiasedexpertise, andadvocate.
rts should consding those whons.
rts should mak
when a questiortise; and
hen they are non, for examplficient informa
er producing ages on any maw should be ces without dele court.”
ead to CPR Par
rtial and inten
erstanding the
f the time exp
nd supports, t
o be the side w
eserved
delines
account of the
of adversarial
d by a party to
es and provide
essentials of e
neral requirem
ous judgment
ustice Cresswe
The Ikarian Re
s for expert ev
ts and Assesso
low this judgm
n mind:
ould be the indert uninfluenceion.
ist the court byd opinions on md should not as
sider all materich might detr
ke it clear –
n or issue falls
not able to reacle because the
ation.
a report, an exaterial matter,ommunicateday, and when
rt 35 is that ex
nded to assist
e issues it has t
ert evidence f
too much one
who instructs
e tensions
proceedings
o that
es guidance to
xpert
ments have
ts of the
ell in his
eefer. The
idence in
ors, which
ment closely,
dependent ed by the
y providing matters withinssume the role
rial facts, ract from their
s outside their
ch a definite ey have
xpert’s view such change
d to all the appropriate
xpert evidence
the court or
to decide. In
frequently
e side to the
the expert).
o
n e
r
e
T
a
o
D
e
d
r
o
c
J
p
t
f
o
c
E
o
t
v
i
c
7
W
p
e
o
o
A
v
c
Top
This might see
and inapprop
of guidance th
Despite this, w
evidence that
dangerous bo
reputation of t
of cases where
criticised by ju
Judges and ar
professionalis
they are confid
first duty is to
of the court or
credence to hi
Experts should
opinion or cal
there is a pote
valuation repo
nvestment ba
company is al
7. Be per
Whilst recogni
previous parag
expressed per
opposed by ex
opinions on th
Australia we c
valuation whic
compliance w
p tips for effectiv
em initially att
riate for all inv
hat expert evid
we have often
is clearly part
th for the othe
those experts.
e experts have
udges, for exam
rbitrators set g
m and impart
dent that an e
provide impa
r tribunal, they
is evidence.
d also be able
culation may
ential conflict o
ort on a partic
ank may not b
so a client of t
Genera
bee
vario
courts
Jus
rsuasive
ising the requ
graph, expert
suasively, as a
xperts giving s
he same evide
onsidered an
ch claimed to
ith valuation s
ve expert evidenc
tractive but wo
volved. There
dence should
seen opposin
tial, and this is
er side’s case
. There have b
e been publicl
mple in Pearc
great weight b
tiality of exper
expert appreci
rtial advice fo
y will inevitab
e to identify wh
not be impart
of interest. Fo
cular company
be independen
the bank.
al requirem
n long est
ous judgm
s, most no
stice Cress
Ika
irements high
evidence sho
any opinion is
substantially d
ence or issues
expert report
have been pr
standards. Ho
ce | Thought Piec
ould be risky
is a great dea
be impartial.
g expert
s highly
and for the
been a numbe
ly and heavily
e v Ove Arup.
by the
rt witnesses. I
ates that his
or the assistan
ly give greater
hen an extern
tial or where
or example, a
y by an
nt if that
ments hav
tablished i
ments of th
otably by M
swell in Th
arian Reefe
hlighted in the
uld be
s likely to be
different
. In one case i
on brand
roduced in
owever on
3ces
l
er
f
ce
r
al
ve
in
he
Mr
he
er
e
n
© 2017
Ap
exa
imp
from
def
aba
rep
8.
Exp
wit
dec
key
For
cus
con
butcusreq
9.
Exp
the
issu
per
wit
pay
sev
res
was
out
in w
hav
10
as
Exp
rea
ma
ass
det
7 Intangible Busin
pril 2017
amination it w
portant respec
m the authorit
ficiency was so
andoned shor
port in reply.
. Consiste
pert evidence
hin itself, but
cided. This is r
y to expert evid
r example, Mc
stomer satisfa
nsistency; and
t consistency isstomers happyquires top-lead
. Focus o
pert evidence
erefore import
ues, and is not
ripheral areas.
h achieving a
yment of a sum
veral cases we
ources devote
s at stake on t
tcome was, un
wasted and di
ve been applie
0. Recog
ssumptio
perts should a
sonable alter
de. A refusal t
sumptions and
trimental. The
ness | All rights re
was not so com
cts, and there
ty and rigour o
o significant th
rtly by the othe
ency
should be con
also with the
really self-evid
dence, as it is
Kinsey have e
ction as: (1) co
d (3) consisten
s the secret ingy. However, it’sdership attenti
n key iss
is often costly
tant that the e
t side-tracked
. Civil disputes
judgment or a
m of money by
have seen sig
ed to issues w
the resolution
nsurprisingly,
verted time a
ed to more sig
nise alte
ons
lways be prep
native assump
to accommod
d to correct m
ere is a balanc
eserved
mpliant, in sev
fore lost the fo
of such comp
hat the claim
er side after se
nsistent, most
evidence or is
dent but consi
to many othe
xpressed the t
onsistency; (2
cy. “It may nogredient to mas difficult to geion.”
sues
y and time con
evidence focus
into insignific
s are usually c
award involvin
y one party to
gnificant time
where no signif
of those issue
not relevant a
nd resources w
gnificant areas
rnative
pared to recog
ptions or any
ate alternativ
mistakes will be
e here for adju
eral
orce gained
liance. This
was
ervice of our
t importantly
ssues to be
stency is as
er activities.
three Cs of
)
ot seem sexy, aking et right and
nsuming. It is
ses on key
cant or
concerned
ng the
o the other. In
and
ficant money
es. The
and resulted
which could
s.
gnise
mistakes
e reasonable
e
usting
f
p
f
a
a
b
c
e
a
c
t
p
W
a
a
h
T
o
1
E
r
r
i
a
a
i
m
Top
financial figur
plausible alte
frequency of a
adjusting whe
alternatives (e
be unprofitab
contrary). Gen
earlier view or
and accepts a
credible and i
to his guns an
partisan.
We have seen
acknowledge
alternative ass
his valuation w
This gave the
objectivity and
11. Be he
Expert eviden
resolution pro
relevant issue
irrelevant area
a mediation (w
acquisition dis
in expert mee
moving forwa
p tips for effectiv
es for reasona
rnative of rele
an entertainm
en presented w
eg where such
le despite ma
nerally, an exp
r opinion that
nd corrects th
mpartial than
d is then seen
a valuation ex
the existence
sumptions to
when such ass
impression th
d so damaged
elpful
ce should be h
ocess. It should
s in a construc
as. We can rec
which ultimate
spute) that an
tings was unh
rd and resolvi
ve expert evidenc
able alternativ
evant facts suc
ment group tou
with unreason
h future tourin
ny indicators
pert who reco
he has expres
hat, will be see
n one who stub
n is perceived
xpert who sim
of any reason
the ones whic
sumptions pla
hat the expert
d his credibilit
helpful to a di
d therefore ad
ctive way and
call a mediato
tely resolved a
n overly aggres
helpful in keep
ing the disput
ce | Thought Piec
ves (eg a
ch as the
uring) to not
nable
g is claimed to
to the
gnises that an
ssed is wrong,
en as more
bbornly sticks
as flawed or
mply refused to
nable
ch underpinne
ainly existed.
was lacking in
ty.
ispute
ddress the key
d not stray into
r saying durin
a post-
ssive approac
ping things
te.
4ces1
o
n
,
s
o
ed
n
y
o
g
ch
© 2017
Ap
12
A g
pro
exp
of
att
an
wh
en
de
alw
gre
res
We
ine
rea
thi
the
na
too
bo
en
ob
13
Ex
wh
are
Sta
be
7 Intangible Busin
pril 2017
2. Under
good understa
ocess should
pertise is prop
that process.
tending meeti
d testifying in
hen providing
vironment ca
lineation of w
ways that clea
eat significanc
solution proce
e have seen op
experience of t
adily all points
s been done i
e issues in dis
rrowed. Equa
o reluctant to
ox, with the co
trenched in th
bjectivity and c
3. Respo
perts should h
hen tested, pa
e well advised
listen to
answer
expand
full and
and
do not
the pre
commo
aying within th
ing straight fo
ness | All rights re
rstanding
anding of, and
be had by the
perly and fairly
Experience of
ngs of experts
tribunal or co
effective expe
n be intimidat
what an expert
r. Even so, exp
ce and relevan
ess.
pposing exper
the dispute re
s put to them
n their expert
pute would ha
ally we have se
concede poin
nsequence th
heir client’s po
credibility.
ond effec
have the abilit
rticularly und
to adopt the
o the question
r the question
d on the answe
d proper unde
be tempted to
evious answer
on interviewer
he bounds of t
orward and au
eserved
g and exp
d experience in
e expert so tha
y presented in
f preparing rep
s, attending m
ourt hearings,
ert evidence. A
ting for an exp
t can and cann
pert evidence
nce to the disp
rts, mainly thr
esolution proc
in cross exam
t reports prior
ave been subs
een experts w
nts properly in
hat they seem
osition and lac
tively
ty to respond
er cross exam
following bas
n;
as put to them
er if that is nec
erstanding of t
o fill the silenc
and the next
r’s tactic).
the expert’s re
uthentic count
perience
n, the dispute
t their
n the context
ports,
mediations
is helpful
A forensic
pert, and the
not do is not
can have
pute
rough
cess, concede
mination. Had
to trial then
stantially
ho have been
n the witness
too
cking
effectively
mination. They
sic approach:
m;
cessary for a
that answer;
ce between
question (a
emit and
ts for a lot,
n
y
b
W
h
a
a
a
A
e
e
b
p
E
h
l
h
e
h
1
q
T
c
Top
both in cross e
We have seen
hearing avoid
after a break, t
answering. Th
and that exper
An expert has t
evidence, he/s
enough to exp
be willing to sp
point is being
Equally, for mo
his/her oral ev
awyers and th
how his/her or
expert conduc
have a signific
14. Deal
question
The expert sho
challenging qu
what
side?
what
p tips for effectiv
examination b
an opposing e
questions in c
take an argum
is gave a bad
rt evidence wa
to walk a diffic
she must be p
plain his/her vi
peak up if he/s
overlooked or
ost of the time
vidence, he/sh
he court/tribun
ral evidence s
cts himself/he
ant impact on
Cros
ultima
with cha
s
ould have the
uestions typica
would you sa
are the weakn
ve expert evidenc
but also in writ
expert in an a
cross examina
mentative app
impression to
as dismissed i
cult line; when
repared and c
iews and, in p
she feels that
r given too litt
e that he/she
he should let t
nal take the le
hould unfold.
rself in the wit
n the outcome
ss examin
ate testing
expe
allenging
ability to dea
ally such as:
ay if instructed
nesses in your
ce | Thought Piec
tten reports.
rbitration
ation and then
roach in
o the tribunal
n the award.
n giving oral
confident
articular, mus
an important
tle significance
is providing
he parties’
ead in decidin
How an
tness box can
e of a case.
ation is th
ground fo
rt evidenc
l with
d by the other
r expert report
5ces
n,
st
t
e.
g
he
or
ce
t?
© 2017
Ap
In
Ma
we
fo
th
po
in
Du
a f
ex
co
ha
7 Intangible Busin
pril 2017
n conclus
any of the exa
e have seen op
r giving effect
ese tips are fo
owerful part of
part or in full.
ue to the conf
few details ca
xamples given
onfidentiality (
as actually occ
ness | All rights re
sion
mples given a
pposing expe
ive expert evid
ollowed, exper
f a case and c
.
idential natur
n be disclosed
have been ed
(whilst fairly il
curred in our e
eserved
above are bas
rts depart from
dence. Howev
rt evidence ca
an sometimes
re of much of o
d and some of
dited to preser
lustrating som
experience).
ed on where
m our top tips
ver, when
n be a
s be relied on
our work, only
f the
rve
mething which
s
y
h
Top
Dispute
Intangib
Accountin
research, c
experience
Analysis o
B
In
p
S
H
R
The overa
resolution
L
In
p
e
E
S
Specific a
projects in
C
P
L
S
U
IP
O
Dol
Kingst
w
p tips for effectiv
resolution
ble Busines
g, marketing,
commercial sk
e.
of the followin
usiness value
ntangible asse
roperty value
hare value
Historic and fo
elated revenu
all capability
ns include:
iability and qu
nternational a
roceedings / s
xpert determi
xpert for one o
ingle joint exp
reas of advic
nclude:
ontractual dis
ost-acquisitio
icence / franc
hareholder / s
Unfair prejudic
P infringemen
Other disputes
Intangible Bu
lphin House, 1
ton upon Tha
Tel: +44 (0)
www.intangib
ve expert evidenc
n services o
ss:
investment b
kills, knowled
ng
e
et and intellec
recast profits
ues and costs
provided for
uantum
arbitration / co
settlement ne
inations
or more partie
pert
ce given in co
sputes
on disputes
chise disputes
stakeholder d
ce / derivative
t
s
usiness Limite
14 Woodside
ames, Surrey
20 8392 0193
blebusiness.co
ce | Thought Piec
ffered by
anking,
ge and
ctual
dispute
ourt
egotiations /
es
ntentious
isputes
actions
ed
Road
KT2 5AT
3
om
6ces
© 2017
Ap
O
Th
Th
wo
res
Th
pro
ind
e: t
t: +
Pa
Pa
exp
ac
po
fin
e:
t: +
7 Intangible Busin
pril 2017
ur team
hayne Forb
ayne is a qual
orked in consu
solution and o
ayne specialis
ojects on a ran
dustries.
thayne.forbe
+44 (0) 79 796
aul Cliff
ul is a qualifie
perience in th
ross a variety
sitions at a nu
ance and equ
paul.cliff@in
+ 44 (0) 79 66
ness | All rights re
of expert
bes
lified account
ulting firms on
other special a
ses in advising
nge of issues a
es@intangibl
65 5653
ed accountant
e valuation of
of industries.
umber of inves
uity research.
ntangiblebusi
26 2288
eserved
ts
ant and mark
n valuation, dis
assignments s
g on dispute r
across many d
ebusiness.co
t with 20 years
f businesses a
Paul has held
stment banks
iness.com
eter who has
spute
ince 1988.
esolution
different
om
s of
nd assets
senior
in corporate
S
S
2
I
S
p
b
e
t
Top
Stuart Whi
Stuart is a qua
20 years comm
nternational,
Since 2000 Stu
projects and h
beverage indu
e: stuart.whit
t: + 44 (0) 77 4
p tips for effectiv
twell
alified account
mercial experie
Haliburton, Se
uart has focus
has particular
ustry.
twell@intang
4703 7824
ve expert evidenc
tant and mark
ence with Ree
ea Land and A
ssed on disput
experience in
giblebusiness
ce | Thought Piec
keter who has
ed
Allied Domecq
te resolution
the global
s.com
7ces
s
q.