PENCIOUS & SEARLE

In the matter of *Pencious & Searle*, heard before Macmillan J, the dispute concerned a subpoena and a notice to produce issued by the husband, seeking the production of certain documents from the wife. Specifically, the husband sought a letter dated 15 October 2010 from Adrian Abrahams Family Lawyers to Mr Wood of Counsel, and a further letter and facsimile transmission identified in an itemised bill of costs from the same firm dated 20 October 2012.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the subpoena and the notice to produce, as issued, were appropriate and should be upheld, or whether they should be struck out. This involved an assessment of the relevance and necessity of the documents sought in the context of the ongoing proceedings.

Macmillan J determined that the subpoena and the notice to produce should be struck out. The reasoning for this decision, though not fully elaborated in the provided text, indicates that the court found the documents sought to be either irrelevant to the proceedings or that the method of seeking their production was improper. The court's orders reflect a decision to quash the husband's attempts to obtain these specific documents through the contested processes.

Consequently, the court ordered that the subpoena issued on 17 March 2015, addressed to the wife for the production of the letter from Adrian Abrahams Family Lawyers to Mr Wood of Counsel dated 15 October 2010, be struck out. Furthermore, the Notice to Produce filed by the husband on 17 April 2015, requiring the wife to produce the letter and facsimile transmission identified as Items 201 and 202 in the itemised bill of costs of Adrian Abrahams Family Lawyers dated 20 October 2012, was also struck out.