Australia: Spoon fed experts: a judge's citicism of expert evidence

Last Updated: 12 June 2013

Smith v Gould [2012] VSC 461

In this issue of Expert Matters, Kellie Badge, Associate Director of KordaMentha's Melbourne Forensic practice, considers the judgement in a case where there was only one accounting expert engaged. The trial judge found that the expert was in breach of the Expert Code of Conduct by solely relying on inadequate instructions and assumptions provided by the lawyers. This resulted in the expert providing an opinion that was irrelevant to the true issue in question – the value of the interest of Mr Smith and Mr Gould ('the Parties') in the assets in dispute – leaving the Judge to undertake the assessment himself.

Background to the case

The case concerns the failed domestic relationship between Mr Geoffrey Smith and Mr Robert Gould and the allocation of property including domestic real estate, investment real estate and a significant collection of modern Australian artwork accumulated over a fourteen year period.1

The dispute centred on the allegation that 54 artworks sourced from Mr Smith, Mr Gould and Gould Galleries ('the Gould-Smith Collection') comprised a jointly-owned private collection and should be included in the pool of assets to be divided between the Parties. In addition, the property dispute involved Mr Gould's share in Dukville Pty Ltd ('Dukville') and its associated entities, E&R Gould Unit Trust ('Gould Trust') and Edrob Nominees Pty Ltd which operates Gould Galleries ('the Business'). Gould Galleries trades in Melbourne (and previously Sydney), focussing on the contemporary and secondary art markets for Australian Art.

In 1996 Mr Gould purchased his Mother's 50% interest in Gould Galleries, bring his holding to a 100% interest at the date of separation (June 2004). Mr Gould's interests in relevant entities are depicted in the diagram below:

The steps taken by the Court

Dixon J set out the three steps which he considered were necessary when dealing with the division of property in this type of matter:

  1. Identification and valuation of the property of the Parties (the 'divisible property');
  2. Evaluating and balancing the Parties' respective contributions, resulting in the percentage apportionment between the Parties at the date of the hearing; and
  3. Determination of the orders required to sufficiently recognise and compensate the plaintiff for his contributions.

At Step 1 the Court's role was to rule on the interests of the domestic parties in the property or financial resources of one or both of them.

In this respect, the Court found that the units in the Gould Trust did not form part of the divisible pool of assets. However, in considering the financial resources available to Mr Gould, the value of Mr Gould's shares in Dukville (and consequently Gould Galleries via the Gould Trust) represented the whole of the relevant financial resources available to Mr Gould which primarily consisted of art work held as inventory by Gould Galleries.

The expert evidence

Mr X was initially engaged by Mr Smith's lawyers to provide limited expert evidence about the accuracy and reliability of financial reports of the Gould entities. Just prior to the trial commencing, Mr X was asked to provide an expert opinion about the increased value of the Business between 1991 and 2004 ('the first period'), and between 1996 and 2004 ('the second period'). Mr X was asked to assume, for the purposes of these valuations, that the net business assets comprised the value of the art works held as inventory (i.e. a valuation using an 'asset based' approach). Mr X commented that the value of inventory was between 66% and 80% of the total value of business assets. Mr X valued the Business based on its net business assets as "the instructions did not enable a suitable figure for maintainable earnings to be established". On that basis alone, Mr X opined that the asset based approach was the appropriate valuation approach to adopt.

In respect of the increased value of the Business in the first and second periods, Mr X concluded that the value increased in both periods, assuming assets and liabilities were accurately stated in the financial statements. However, he said he was unable to conclude whether either Mr Gould's or the Gould Galleries' income and expenses had been fully and accurately disclosed. Only on cross-examination, and notwithstanding that he based his opinion on these financial statements, did he draw attention to the significant discrepancies apparent to him upon examining the financial records concerning inventory.

Much later in the trial amended financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2006 were provided to Mr X for comment, and he was highly critical of the unrealistic value of closing inventory. It was found that the accountants for Mr Gould had identified the following issues in relation to the value of inventory:

  1. The value of inventory in FY02 to FY06 was understated in the financial statements and tax returns and Mr Gould's accountants recorded all financial adjustments for the five years in the FY06 financial statements and tax return, as opposed to preparing amended financial statements and lodging amended tax returns of each financial year;
  2. The understatement of inventory in FY02 to FY06 and subsequent adjustment to the FY06 financial accounts and tax return resulted in a significant tax liability in FY06, which skewed the financial results; and
  3. Inventory was recorded on the balance sheet at cost, which was understated when the current market value of any particular painting to a willing seller is based on the current market value, influenced by the popularity of particular artists or styles of artwork.

Such significant issues meant Mr X was unable to express any meaningful opinion in relation to the increased value of the Business.

The Judge's criticisms and rulings

The Judge was scathing of the Parties and Mr X. He found that:

  1. Mr X breached the Expert Witness Code of Conduct ('the Code') by relying on assumptions set by the lawyers without establishing an opinion based on his own expert knowledge and the circumstances of the case.
  2. Mr Smith's advisors failed to direct Mr X to the proper questions to be considered, and he was unable to express any meaningful opinion addressing the issues that the Court had to determine.
  3. Mr X, by virtue of his expertise, should have sought proper instructions to establish a suitable maintainable earnings figure.
  4. The proceedings were not subject to close judicial case management. This revealed how limited the modern view taken by litigation solicitors was of their obligations to the Court. Had the parties sought to conduct the dispute 'sensibly', an appropriate expert would have been appointed by the Court for the purposes of valuing the Business.
  5. After time-consuming and expensive interlocutory disputes, the Court was left with unsatisfactory and unprincipled evidence from which to make a finding about the value of the Gould Galleries at the relevant date and about the nature of Mr Smith's contribution to the relationship.

In the absence of appropriate expert evidence, the Judge was forced to carry out the valuation of the Business. In doing so, he relied on the limited evidence put before him, including the Gould Galleries' financial statements (even though he did not accept that they reflected a true and fair view of the financial position at relevant balance dates). He rejected the net assets valuation approach and ruled that a capitalisation of future earnings approach was most appropriate. He ordered that a review of the change in gross profit margin of the business after the Parties commenced their relationship should be completed, as the components of the margin calculations would show the effects of Mr Smith's contributions to the Gallery due to his expertise.

Similar breaches of the Code have been seen in the matter of Orrong Strategies v Village Roadshow2. The accounting expert in that case was instructed by his client to adopt parameters that produced two widely different results, which he did without providing an opinion as to whether the assumptions were reasonable, even though he considered they produced 'commercially nonsensical' results. In Orrong Strategies v Village Roadshow the Judge held that the expert was in breach of the Code because he withheld significant information from the Court that the expert regarded as relevant. Whereas in Smith v Gould the Judge held that the expert breached the Code because he provided an opinion that was not based on his own expert knowledge and the circumstances of the Case. In both of these cases, the Experts did not question the assumptions provided by the client or provide an opinion as to whether they were reasonable.


In this case, the criticisms from the Judge highlight three very important factors that experts should always keep in the forefront of their minds:

  1. Their overriding duty is to the Court to assist with analysing the matters and issues of the case that fall within their expertise and present their opinions, either written or oral, in simple language that a non-expert can understand. They are to conduct themselves within the rules of the Code and not simply pay 'lip service' to them.
  2. When presented with an assumption, they should consider its reasonableness in light of their expert knowledge and provide their opinion, supported by appropriate relevant evidence, before the Court.
  3. They should assist the client in focussing on the most relevant areas of opinion evidence required by the Court. This will have a two-fold effect of the client gaining value for money in relation to the costs of expert evidence and ensuring relevant evidence is placed before the Court for the judge to make an informed judgement.

Ultimately an expert's reputation is gauged by the robustness of their oral and written opinions, compliance with the Code and ability to assist the Court with complex matters. Their reputation can quickly be tainted when a Judge's unfavourable ruling is published in publically available rulings and case transcripts.


1This matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria under the Property Law Act. For relationships that ceased from 1 March 2009 (or 1 July 2010 in South Australia) matters of de facto property settlement are now heard by the Family Law Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, with the exception of those domiciled in Western Australia.

2Orrong Strategies Pty Ltd v Village Roadshow Ltd [2007] VSC 1 (25 January 2007).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.