Frost & Frost [2026] FedCFamC1F 3, involved two judgments. 

The first was a Division 1 First Instance decision of His Honour, Schonell J, on  
22 December 2025 where the applicant wife/mother filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to discharge the jointly appointed single expert real estate valuer and instead appoint a different valuer of her choosing.  The property had already been valued in May 2024 and that valuation required an update prior to the scheduled February 2026 final hearing.   

The applicant’s reasoning was the cost of an update by the original valuer was more than the cost of retaining a different valuer.  She also, through an email from her chosen valuer, a Mr Hanlon, raised a number of alleged flaws in the original single expert report along with an alleged difficulty with the property, and proceedings, being in Tasmania and the single expert being based in Victoria.   

His Honour dismissed the application but did not deliver reasons until 12 January 2026, approximately three weeks prior to the final hearing, where he outlined the following: 

• Following on from the email no questions were put to the single expert as is permitted by the Rules. 

• Two months expired between Mr Hanlon’s email and the application in a proceeding for which there was no explanation. 

• It was only six weeks before the scheduled final hearing. 

• Mr Hanlon had not proffered a value and there was no evidence that he would come to a different conclusion to the single expert. 

• Discharging the single expert could result in no expert evidence as to valuation in time for the final hearing. 

• Questions could be put to the single expert in cross examination. 

• The single expert could attend electronically to be cross examined. 

Takeway: removing a jointly appointed single expert is no easy task so if you are the one proposing the three names be sure to choose wisely.  Similarly, if you are the one choosing from the three proposed names, also choose wisely.