Too long; didn’t read
When a party in family law proceedings overstates or understates a property’s value to gain a strategic advantage, a well-drafted Joint Valuation Order can neutralise the tactic. By requiring each party to first commit their estimate in writing — and then face a costs penalty if their estimate proves to be wildly off — the order removes the incentive to game the process. Why should you pay for the otherside wild approach to valuations! Where both parties estimate the same value, no formal valuation is needed at all, saving everyone time and money.
The problem with valuations in property disputes
In family law property settlements, the value attributed to real estate is rarely neutral ground. One party may have a strong incentive to argue a property is worth far more than it is — or far less. This is not always bad faith, but it does mean that the cost and inconvenience of formal valuations can itself become a tool of delay or pressure.
The orthodox approach — simply ordering a joint valuation — solves part of the problem. But it does nothing to prevent a party from running an inflated or deflated estimate through the formal process simply to drag out proceedings, run up costs, or cloud the court’s assessment of the overall asset pool.
The order set out below is designed to address that problem directly.
The key insight: commit first, then value
The critical mechanism in this order is that each party must file a written estimate of value before any formal valuation occurs. This does two things. First, it forces parties to put a number on the table — a number they will later be held to. Second, it creates a gatekeeping mechanism: if both parties’ estimates are close enough to agree, no formal valuation is required at all.
If the respective estimates are agreed, that is a joint valuation — and the cost of an independent expert is spared entirely.
Where estimates cannot be agreed, the formal valuation proceeds. But the party whose estimate turns out to have been materially wrong bears the cost of that exercise. This is where the order sharpens into something genuinely useful.
The template order
ORDER — JOINT VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTIES
- That the parties undertake a joint valuation of the following real properties:
- 1.1 [Property A];
- 1.2 [Property B]; and
- 1.3 [Property C].
- Within 7 days of the date of these Orders, each party shall file and serve on the other party a written notice setting out their estimated value of each property referred to in Orders 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 (“the Estimated Value Notice”).
- Within 7 days of receipt of the other party’s Estimated Value Notice, each party shall notify the other party in writing whether they accept or reject the other party’s estimated value for each property (“the Response Notice”).
- Where a party accepts the other party’s estimated value for a property as set out in the Response Notice:
- 4.1 No valuation of that property is required;
- 4.2 The agreed value of that property shall be the value proposed by the other party as set out in that party’s Estimated Value Notice; and
- 4.3 The relevant date of valuation for that property shall be the date upon which the accepting party’s Response Notice is received by the other party.
- Where the parties are unable to agree on the value of any property pursuant to Order 4, the parties shall undertake a joint valuation of that property as follows:
- 5.1 Within 7 days of the date of the Response Notice, the Respondent shall propose the names of three registered valuers;
- 5.2 Within 7 days of receipt of the Respondent’s proposed valuers, the Applicant shall choose one valuer to prepare a valuation report in respect of each property for which agreement has not been reached pursuant to Order 4; and
- 5.3 The valuation report shall specify the market value of the relevant property as at the date of inspection by the valuer.
- The costs of each valuation required pursuant to Order 5 shall be paid equally by the parties at first instance, as and when those costs fall due.
- Upon receipt of each valuation report, the ultimate burden of the costs of that valuation shall be reallocated as follows, applying the percentage variance calculated in accordance with Order 8:
- 7.1 Where the expert valuation of a property falls within 10% (above or below) of both parties’ estimated values as set out in their respective Estimated Value Notices, the costs of that valuation shall remain borne equally by the parties;
- 7.2 Where the expert valuation of a property departs by 10% or more from the estimated value of one party as set out in that party’s Estimated Value Notice, the party whose estimated value so departs shall bear the full costs of that valuation and shall reimburse the other party for any costs already paid by that other party within 14 days of the date of the valuation report;
- 7.3 Where the expert valuation of a property departs by 10% or more from the estimated values of both parties as set out in their respective Estimated Value Notices, the costs of that valuation shall remain borne equally by the parties notwithstanding those departures.
- For the purposes of Order 7, the percentage variance shall be calculated in respect of each party separately as follows: Variance = | Expert Valuation − Party’s Estimated Value | ÷ Expert Valuation × 100
Why the costs mechanism is the heart of it
The 10% variance threshold in Orders 7 and 8 is deliberately calibrated. Property valuations are not a precise science — markets fluctuate, comparable sales vary, and reasonable valuers can differ. A margin of 10% acknowledges that reality. What it does not tolerate is a party who has strayed well outside the range of honest estimation.
The practical effect is significant. A party contemplating an aggressive valuation position , say, valuing a property at $1.5 million when the market suggests $1 million , now faces a direct personal costs consequence if an independent valuer confirms the true figure. The order transforms an abstract professional obligation of candour into a concrete financial risk.
Conversely, where both parties have given honest estimates and the valuer arrives at a figure that surprises everyone, Order 7.3 ensures neither party is penalised for what amounts to genuine uncertainty in the market.
When to seek this order
This order is most useful where there is a real and contested dispute about value — and one party appears to be using that dispute strategically rather than genuinely. It is also well-suited to cases involving multiple properties, where a blanket order for formal valuations of every asset would be disproportionate and expensive.
In straightforward cases where one party simply does not know the value of a property, the estimate-first process often resolves the question without the need for any expert at all. Where the parties are genuinely close in their thinking, agreement at the Response Notice stage is not uncommon.
A note on the valuer selection process
Order 5 gives the Respondent the right to nominate three registered valuers, with the Applicant selecting from that shortlist. This structure is deliberate. It prevents either party from unilaterally appointing a valuer — which creates the appearance, if not the reality, of a partisan expert. At the same time, by giving the Respondent the right of nomination and the Applicant the right of selection, neither side has full control, and both have an incentive to offer genuinely independent professionals.
In summary
Valuations in family law proceedings are expensive, slow, and often unnecessary. Where a party is using the valuation process as a lever rather than as a genuine tool of fact-finding, this order provides an effective counterweight. It rewards honesty, penalises overreach, and — most importantly — it can eliminate the need for a formal valuation altogether where both parties are prepared to deal with each other squarely.
If you are facing a property dispute where valuations are being used as a delaying tactic, or where you believe the other party’s position on value is not a genuine one, this approach is worth considering. We are happy to advise on whether it is suitable for your circumstances.