Most pension SJE reports are accepted at face value by the parties and never tested in court. The few that go to trial — or that get challenged under FPR Part 25 questioning — surface a consistent pattern in what makes a report hold up versus what makes it unravel. The pattern is rarely about the numbers; it is about the methodological reasoning the report makes visible.
What the Court is actually assessing
An SJE pension report is expert evidence prepared under FPR Part 25 (or CPR Part 35 in equivalent proceedings). The Expert’s overriding duty is to the Court, not to either party. Where a report is challenged — in written questions under FPR 25.10, in cross-examination at trial, or in submissions on the weight the Court should give it — the assessment turns on three things the Court can see in the report itself.
First, whether the report explains its methodology in language that lets a judge follow the reasoning, not just accept the conclusion. Second, whether the assumption set used is disclosed in full and is defensible against the assumptions the Court would expect to see for the question being answered. Third, whether the report distinguishes clearly between matters of professional judgement (where the Expert is offering an opinion) and matters of calculation (where the Expert is reporting a numerical result).
A report that fails on any of those three rarely fails quietly. It produces written-question responses that compound the problem, cross-examination that the Expert struggles to recover from, and judicial commentary that travels with the Expert’s reputation across subsequent matters.
Methodology that survives questioning
The methodology question matters more than is typically appreciated at the instruction stage. CETV-equivalent valuations — mechanical calculations applying the scheme’s published transfer-value basis — are useful for many matters and indefensible for others. They produce a single number that the report writer often presents as the answer to the parties’ question, when the substantive question is whether the CETV is representative of the economic value of the entitlement at hand.
For schemes where CETVs are likely to under-state economic value — mature defined-benefit schemes with accrual on inflationary structures, schemes approaching buy-out where the CETV basis lags market pricing, public-sector schemes where the published factors are themselves subject to review — relying on CETV-equivalence without acknowledging the gap is a methodological choice the Expert needs to defend. The defensible approach is to compute the CETV-equivalent figure where it serves the parties’ question, and separately to assess whether that figure represents economic value, with the methodology for both clearly distinguished.
The same applies in reverse for accrued public-sector entitlements where the GAD-published factors may produce values higher or lower than the underlying economic position depending on the scheme structure and the valuation date. The Expert who reports the GAD-factored figure as ‘the answer’ without engaging with the underlying methodology question has not addressed the substantive question the parties are asking.
Where the assumption set matters
The assumption set is where many SJE reports become unrecoverable in cross-examination. Three categories of assumption matter operationally.
The discount-rate basis carries through every figure in the report. A discount rate calibrated to the CETV basis of the scheme will not produce the same answer as one calibrated to gilt-curve fair-value, which will not produce the same answer as one calibrated to the parties’ alternative use of the funds. The Expert needs to be able to explain the choice in the report and defend it under questioning. The unrecoverable position is the report that uses one rate without naming why, then discovers under cross-examination that the choice would have moved the answer materially.
The mortality basis carries similar weight. Standard population mortality, scheme-specific mortality where data permits, or impaired-life mortality where the parties’ circumstances justify it — the choice between these matters, particularly where the report is computing income equalisation at retirement and small mortality differences compound over decades. The defensible report names the basis used, names the alternative bases that could have been used, and explains why the chosen basis is appropriate for the question asked.
The inflation assumption is the third lever and the one most often left implicit. CPI versus RPI, the gap between the two as projected by the Bank of England versus by gilt-market implied rates, the treatment of caps and floors on scheme increases — these technical choices move the headline figures and they are exactly the kind of detail a well-prepared Counsel will probe in cross-examination. Reports that are explicit about the inflation choices and their effect on the answer survive that probing; reports that aren’t, don’t.
Distinguishing judgement from calculation
The third pattern in defensible reports is the discipline of separating opinion from arithmetic. Within any pension valuation, there are figures that are pure calculation given the assumption set (the technical present value of an entitlement on stated assumptions) and figures that involve professional judgement (whether the assumption set is appropriate, whether the entitlement is correctly characterised, whether scheme-specific features change the analysis).
Defensible reports make this distinction visible. The calculation results are reported as numerical findings. The professional judgements are reported as opinions, with the reasoning shown and the alternatives the Expert considered acknowledged. The Court can then assess each category against its own standards: calculation results against arithmetical correctness, opinion against the substantive reasoning offered.
Reports that blur the two — presenting a contestable methodological judgement as if it were a calculation result, or wrapping a calculation in qualifying language that implies it is opinion — create exactly the surface area that adverse cross-examination is designed to exploit. The Expert who answers a Part 35 question by clarifying that a particular figure is calculation given a stated assumption is in a much stronger position than the Expert who finds themselves defending the assumption while the questioner treats the figure as given.
The procedural details that separate routine from defensible
Several procedural details, mundane in isolation, make a substantial difference to defensibility in the aggregate.
The Statement of Truth, in the form required by the Family Procedure Rules, signed and dated. The Expert’s qualifications and experience set out in full, including any limitations on their authority to give the opinions offered. The substance of all material instructions summarised in the report itself, so the Court can see what the Expert was asked to address and on what basis. Any limitations or qualifications on the report’s conclusions stated explicitly, with the reasoning the Court would need to assess them.
For Single Joint Expert work specifically, simultaneous delivery to both Parties’ representatives, with all communications shared between the two sides — the procedural symmetry that protects the Expert’s independence and gives the Court confidence in the report’s impartiality. Reports that drift from these procedural requirements give Counsel ground to question not the substance but the conduct of the engagement, which is a separate and additional vulnerability.
Where Congruent is engaged
The firm runs the Pension Sharing Order Calculation Service as a productised offering, with senior pensions experts named to engagements as Single Joint Expert under FPR Part 25 in matrimonial proceedings. Reports are prepared to the procedural standards above, with methodology disclosure, assumption-set transparency and the calculation-versus-judgement distinction handled to the firm’s standards across every engagement. The same senior pensions expert who prepares the report handles Part 35 written-question responses and gives oral evidence directly. No outsourcing to junior staff at any stage.
Engagement is contracted through the firm’s short Invitation Letter and General Terms and Conditions. Solicitors typically use their own joint instruction documents drafted to their house style; the firm’s Pension Sharing Instruction Form — the eight-section instrument covering proceedings, parties, targeted outcomes, technical instructions and procedural rules — is available where useful but is not required.
For matters where parties are not solicitor-represented — engaging directly or supported by a mediator — instruction runs through the firm’s My Congruent portal, which substitutes for the joint-instruction-assembly function solicitors otherwise carry and produces the unambiguous signed instruction the Expert needs.
Last updated May 2026.