Share this content

Very interesting "dog" goodwill case

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/2506.html

Didn't find your answer?

See paras 352 et seq. This allows for potential personal goodwill tax planning re incorporations etc. 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/2506.html

The £1.4m valuation expert's name was quite apt per paras 404 et seq.

 

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

David Winch
By David Winch
24th Sep 2021 15:21

You have to feel some sympathy for the unfortunate valuer who did a cheap & cheerful valuation on the back of an envelope & then got ripped to bits in court!
The moral of the story is, be very careful when asked to do a cheap & cheerful forensic accountancy job.

Thanks (1)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
24th Sep 2021 15:55

Yes; it's not too uncommon for expert witnesses like this to be heavily criticized by judges for overlooking their duty to the court etc. per para 23, but I can't recall seeing an expert being warned in these extreme terms per para 419.

"It was at this stage that I reminded Mr Slack that he was under oath and should not treat the giving of evidence in court as a game. He apologised."

Possibly business will be a bit slack for him hereafter...

Indeed, the case does not reflect too well on anyone from the Applicant's side per para 592 nor generally re the three male protagonist co-investors (all a bit "handbags at dawn" one could say).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
David Winch
By David Winch
24th Sep 2021 15:47

Perhaps he thought on the spur of the moment that he had a 'clever' justificantion for a figure which he was otherwise unable to justify. Overall one gets the impression that he had a figure in mind for the value he wanted - and just needed to find some 'reasoning' to support that number.
Of course one should never start with the answer & work backwards to the justification for it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Calculatorboy
26th Sep 2021 16:44

Slack does not deserve any slack whatsoever. It does not matter how little or how much he charged ...he's still liable for negligent work. This was such a basic error

Thanks (0)
Share this content