Judicial principles and studies
Gross disparity, third‑party acts and collusion in share valuation
The study examines the proof requirements for seeking revaluation where fraud or collusion is alleged in valuation committees, and the resulting legal effects on the contracting party's liability.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The claimant alleged a gross disparity in valuation of his shares in companies and real estate evaluated by a valuation committee agreed in an accounting agreement, asserting that committee members committed fraud and that the defendant colluded with them, seeking revaluation and recognition of the true value of the assets.
Summary
The official points state that the claimant bears the burden of proving fraud and collusion, which are factual matters provable by any admissible means; mere differences between the committee's expert valuations and experts before the court do not suffice to prove collusion. Liability is generally personal, and the contracting counterparty is not held responsible for errors of the committee's experts unless its participation or collusion with those experts is established. Absent proof of such collusion, the claim fails. This is an educational summary only; it is not a judicial text nor legal advice.
Practical significance
Practically, a successful request for revaluation on grounds of gross disparity depends on proving both fraud by committee members and a link to the contracting party. If collusion is not shown, errors by the valuers do not transfer liability to the other contracting party, and the parties' legal positions become settled only by a final adjudicative decision.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.