HUGHES & HUGHES

The case of *Hughes & Hughes* concerned an application for property settlement between a husband and wife. A significant aspect of the proceedings involved an application for costs by an interested third party, who had been served with a subpoena by the husband to produce documents. The third party contended that the documents sought were irrelevant and overly broad.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the property settlement should be finalised on a just and equitable basis, and whether the costs incurred by the interested third party in responding to the husband's subpoena should be borne by the husband. The court was required to consider the scope and relevance of the documents sought by the husband and the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the third party's involvement.

Johns J made an interim order that the husband pay a fixed sum towards the costs of the interested third party. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the relevance and breadth of the subpoena, indicating a preliminary view that the husband's request for documents was not entirely justified. The court's reasoning suggests an application of principles concerning the proportionality of discovery and the protection of third parties from undue burden in litigation.