The complexities of valuing artwork in financial remedy proceedings

• 16 July 2025
• Views

The case of GO v YA [2024] EWFC 411 illustrates just how hard it is to value artwork and businesses built on a stock of artwork. In financial proceedings on divorce, the judge directed multiple valuations of the artwork in question, influenced by factors such as the current state of the art market, and whether there would be an immediate sale or a staged sale of the artwork. 

A large proportion of the assets comprised the husband’s business, which sold works of art, and his personal art collection. He was a leading expert in a particular area of art, having worked in the industry for over 50 years, and he intended to continue the business. He asserted that his personal collection was worth around £153,000, and estimated his 95% stake in the business to be worth just over £6 million on a net asset basis. The wife (who held the remaining 5% stake in the business) argued that the business was worth much more, and made an early application for an expert to value underlying stock. 

During the proceedings, there were multiple directions for inventories to be made illustrating the value of the stock. At the First Appointment, the husband was directed to provide a ‘detailed inventory’ of all the art held by him personally and in the business, on the basis that it would then be valued by a single joint expert (SJE). When this proved too cumbersome and costly, with the parties “baulking” at the £150,000 plus VAT the expert sought to charge, a different form of valuation was considered. The wife was permitted to choose up to 375 pieces of artwork (around 10% of the total inventory) with the SJE valuing these selected items. That value would be used to estimate a value for the entire collection, though the precise mechanism for this was left to be determined at a later date. The costs of this exercise were capped at £70,000 plus VAT. 

The discrepancy with the husband’s valuation was large; the SJE valued one particular painting at £550,000, which the husband had valued at £50,000. The SJE valued the husband’s personal art collection at £1,180,850 (a dramatic increase from the £153,000 estimated by the husband). The wife used this fact to suggest the husband was deliberately undervaluing his assets. In response, the husband offered the wife the specific painting with the huge valuation discrepancy (on the basis that if she thought it was worth £550,000, she could sell it at that price). The wife refused that offer, claiming to dislike the painting! Presumably, she had little confidence that she could sell the painting at the SJE’s estimated value. The judge noted that was “a good illustration of the rather soft, and sometimes unreal, attempt at a valuation exercise.”

A further inventory produced “caused more confusion than clarity”, so a joint report was directed – which, again, proved unhelpful.

In addition to inventory discrepancies, the matter of discounts was discussed. The SJE was asked to opine on whether a discount should be attributed to the valuation figures on the basis that there was either an immediate sale of the items, or the sale was staggered over 7.5 years. The SJE stated that there should be a 70-75% discount for an immediate sale, and a 20-25% discount for a sale staggered over 7.5 years. 

At the Final Hearing, though maintaining that the SJE valuation was wrong, the husband did not formally challenge the expert’s evidence in cross-examination. This meant that the rule in Browne v Dunn [1893] 6 R 67 applied, and the court was obliged to accept the SJE’s valuation.

The judge accepted the SJE’s valuation figures and observations on the discounts applicable for the immediate sale and staggered sale options. However, while the SJE’s valuations on the valued items were around 50% above the husband’s valuations, the judge refused to apply the same uplift to the c.90% of items that had not been valued.

The judge valued the business at £13 million on a 7-year staggered sale assumption. He expressed reservations about this figure, and cited Lewison LJ in Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050: “The valuation of private companies is a matter of no little difficulty” and Moylan J in H v H [2008] EWHC 935 (Fam): “valuations of shares in private companies are among the most fragile valuations which can be obtained”.

The judge ordered two lump sums to be paid to the wife, directing that if the second lump sum was not paid, the husband would have to sell all his shares in the business. He lamented that the business had “rather bedevilled the proceedings throughout.”

This case serves as a stark reminder of how complex, time-consuming and costly it is to value artwork, and how many factors can influence a valuation. Art is deeply personal, and emotions can run high where one party has built up a personal collection that has meaning and significance for them. These factors can result in financial remedy proceedings being dragged out and prevent the parties from reaching early agreement. As Charli XCX remarked after her recent Glastonbury performance, “art is divisive”.