Forensic accountants Dawna Wright and Rhys Horwill explore a recent engagement with a client in the health care industry. This matter highlighted the risks of relying on incorrect assumptions, particularly when the opposing expert relied on our client's valuation models, originally prepared for financial reporting purposes, to assess loss suffered by individuals. Recognising these challenges, it was essential for us not to accept the opponent's methodology at face value. Instead, we returned to first principles, applying our loss and industry expertise to critically evaluate their approach.
This kind of complex, high-stakes litigation demands more than technical skill – it calls for a team with the depth, experience and agility to deliver under pressure. Our Forensic team brings exactly that. The experience outlined below reinforced the importance of independent thinking, disciplined execution and drawing on a broad mix of technical, analytical and communication capabilities. The depth and breadth of our Forensic practice enables us to quickly mobilise the right team and work efficiently with legal counsel to deliver results when it matters most.
The Clock Starts Now
It landed late on a Friday: a Court timetable with all the subtlety of a guillotine. After several months working on a complex proceeding – sifting through thousands of documents, including complex valuation models and other financial records – we finally had our deadline. Acting as the independent expert on behalf of the Respondents, FTI Consulting had been instructed to prepare a report critiquing the other expert's loss opinions, and now we had just two weeks to file it. No flexibility. No margin for delay. It was a guillotine order in the truest sense: if the report wasn't filed by the deadline, it wouldn't be accepted by the Court as evidence. The pressure was immediate and intense. The only way through was to move fast and bring in the right people – and fortunately, we had the team depth and resourcing to respond quickly.
The Team That Gets It Done – Fast
We quickly mobilised a team tailored for high-pressure dispute work – not just large, but deliberately composed. We drew on people already across the matter, who had deep factual knowledge and document familiarity. We rounded out the team by carefully hand-picking experienced specialists from around Australia to bring into the matter – rising stars in the forensic market who have built substantial experience through complex engagements. Our approach was about assembling the right archetypes – the "fixers," domain experts who could immediately identify what needed to be done and execute with limited direction and oversight. To enable them to focus fully on the urgent and complex work at hand, we helped redistribute their existing workloads to other team members. This kind of agile resource management was only possible due to the depth of talent within our team and across the business.
Several of our team members brought a combination of capabilities to the matter, allowing us to work efficiently and avoid duplication. Among them, the team brought:
- Technical expertise in loss assessment, enabling them to critically analyse the opposing expert's report and focus quickly on the most relevant issues, in particular, the loss methodology applied;
- Valuation expertise, including cash flow modelling and discount rate analysis;
- Data analytics and visualisation capability, which we leveraged to respond to instructed questions concerning changes in property prices. This also involved drawing on the experience of our Economics team to support statistical sampling analysis, which was critical to answering these questions;
- Strong project management ability, with team leads who could plan, prioritise and direct their sub-teams, without requiring close supervision; and
- Sharp report writing skills, critical for producing clear, Court-ready analysis and reasoning on compressed timelines where multiple drafting stages weren't feasible.
Despite the magnitude of the task at hand, we didn't just throw people at the problem. This was a curated team – each person selected for their ability to act fast, think critically and deliver under pressure. We structured the engagement into clear workstreams with well-defined responsibilities and ran daily check-ins to maintain momentum. That clarity and coordination helped us maintain quality under pressure and ensure the client (and the Court) remained focused on the issues that mattered most.
Ultimately, what sets our teams apart is not just the depth of expertise, but versatility across disciplines. Combining commercial acumen, forensic rigour and litigation insight we hit the ground running and stay ahead of complex issues. Whether navigating disputes, interrogating large data sets or distilling key arguments for the Court, our team brings experience purpose-built for high-stakes, time-sensitive litigation.
Critiquing, Not Chasing
A common pitfall in independent expert work is getting drawn into the opposing expert's framing – responding point-by-point and getting lost in their weeds without first questioning whether their overall methodology is sound. From the outset, this team took a more strategic approach. We stepped back to assess whether the opponent's methodology made sense to begin with.
In this case, it didn't. That broader perspective allowed us to form a clear, independent view that was grounded in first principles rather than shaped by someone else's structure. It also gave us a framework for identifying which aspects of the opposing expert's analysis warranted deeper scrutiny, and which could be deprioritised given the fundamental flaws in their approach, which was a distinction that was critical given the tight timeframes we were working under.
Don't Just Cite – Understand
The opposing expert made assumptions about the meaning of certain fields in the valuation models obtained in discovery. However, their interpretation was subsequently shown to be incorrect. Rather than rely on their assumptions, we undertook our own detailed, forensic analysis of the models, sought clarification from our instructing solicitors, and were provided with explanations that directly addressed the fields in question – ultimately demonstrating that the opposing expert's analysis was fundamentally flawed.
This approach reflected our broader process: we didn't stop at reviewing the documents themselves. We actively tested our understanding by raising targeted questions, and the responses we received formed part of the instructions on which FTI Consulting's report was based. That context was critical – it clarified the intent behind key material and helped us identify where the opposing expert had misunderstood the documents leading to erroneous conclusions.
Mark the Moment
The matter ultimately settled shortly after FTI Consulting's report was filed, with our client required to pay only a mere fraction of the claim originally valued in the hundreds of millions – being just enough to cover the Applicants' costs. The outcome reflected a coordinated effort, with our work contributing meaningfully to the resolution. Under pressure, it wasn't just expertise that mattered – it was how the team showed up, worked together, and delivered when it counted.
Key Takeaway
The outcome reflected the strength of our large Forensic practice, whose depth and breadth of technical, analytical and communication skills enable us to resource complex matters with confidence and agility. Without that depth and flexibility, we may not have been able to deliver the matter in the way we did. This capability is a key reason why our approach stands apart in high-stakes, time-sensitive litigation.
Clients engage us because we combine proven technical expertise with a scalable, agile team structure that adapts swiftly to evolving demands – contributing to timely, robust and strategically sound outcomes even under intense pressure.
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.
