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.