Rigby & Kingston (No. 3)

This case involved a dispute between a husband and wife in family law proceedings, with numerous corporate entities and individuals joined as respondents. The primary issues before the court concerned the disjoinder of certain respondents and the review of a deputy registrar's decision regarding objections to subpoenas. Specifically, several respondents argued they should be removed from the proceedings as no orders were sought against them and no factual or legal contentions justified their continued involvement. Additionally, named persons subject to subpoenas argued that the requests were irrelevant, oppressive, and constituted an improper attempt at discovery. The husband also sought further conduct money for those served with subpoenas.

The court was required to determine whether the 20th, 23rd, 29th, and 30th respondents should be removed from the proceedings, given the absence of pleaded claims against them and their assertion that their rights were not directly affected. Furthermore, the court had to consider the validity of objections to subpoenas, specifically whether the documents sought were relevant, whether the subpoenas were oppressive, and if they were being used for discovery. The court also needed to address the adequacy of conduct money paid by the husband to those served with subpoenas.

In relation to the disjoinder applications, the court found that the husband had failed to establish why the 20th, 23rd, 29th, and 30th respondents were necessary parties, as no specific claims or contentions of fact or law had been pleaded to justify their continued inclusion. Regarding the subpoenas, the court determined that the documents sought had an apparent relevance to the husband's claims. However, it found that the definition of "related entities" within the subpoenas was oppressive, requiring the named persons to make subjective judgments. The court also clarified that the subpoenas sought production of identified documents rather than imposing a general discovery process. Consequently, aspects of the objections were upheld, and the husband was ordered to pay additional conduct money to cover the substantial expenses incurred by the subpoenaed parties.

The court ordered the removal of the 20th, 23rd, 29th, and 30th respondents as parties to the proceedings. It dismissed an application seeking a review of the deputy registrar’s decision to hear objections to subpoenas in chambers without an oral hearing. The court also upheld objections to the production of documents in accordance with certain subpoenas to the extent that the definition of "related entities" was found to be oppressive, limiting the scope of documents to be produced. Finally, the husband was ordered to pay a specified additional amount for conduct money.