HALSTRON & HALSTRON

The case of *Halstron & Halstron* concerned an application by the husband to review a Registrar's decision. The dispute arose when the wife sought leave for an advisor to view documents and correspondence related to the proceeding. The husband raised objections to the advisor's character, qualifications, and appropriateness, and issued subpoenas concerning the advisor. The wife, in turn, objected to these subpoenas. The husband argued that allowing the advisor to view the documents would breach implied obligations and the Rules.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the advisor's inspection of documents fell within the scope of Rule 13.07A of the relevant rules, and whether the husband could object to the wife's choice of advisor based on asserted defects in their character, capacity, qualifications, or mental illness. The Registrar had upheld the husband's objections, and the husband sought to have this decision affirmed on review.

Rees J determined that the advisor's inspection of documents was indeed contemplated by Rule 13.07A. Crucially, the court held that the choice of advisor was not a matter that could be objected to on the grounds of asserted defects in their character, capacity, qualifications, or mental illness. The court found that the Registrar had erred in upholding the objections.

Consequently, the application of the husband to review the decision of Registrar Hayward was dismissed.