J v L - [2025] NZHC 1490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-3280

[2025] NZHC 1490

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER

of an application for discovery after the commencement of proceedings

BETWEEN

J

Appellant

AND

L

Respondent

Hearing: 21 May 2025

Counsel:

S L L Gallagher for appellant

K A Koo and S Lye for respondent

Judgment:

9 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(appeal against discovery orders)

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 June 2025 at 3.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Righteous Law, Auckland Kootelle, Auckland

J v L [2025] NZHC 1490 [9 June 2025]

[1] For around four years now, Ms L has been pursuing relationship property proceedings, in the Family Court at Manukau, against Mr J. In late August 2024 (by amended application) Ms L sought, and in late November 2024 she obtained from a Family Court Associate, an order under r 141 of the Family Court Rules 2002 (the Rules) that Mr J and various New Zealand trading banks provide discovery of certain documents.1

[2] Mr J appeals against the order for discovery. He accepts that the Family Court Associate had the power to make the order.2 But he says that the order is too broad, and offends against the principle that discovery in Family Court proceedings should not be onerous.

Background

[3] Ms L and Mr J live in China. They have been married to each other three times. They married in 1996 and divorced in 2000. They married again in 2003 and divorced in 2017. And they married in 2019 and separated (finally) in early 2020, before divorcing in early 2024.

[4] Ms L’s substantive proceeding seeks the division of what she contends is relationship property, consisting of:

(a)three residential properties in Auckland;

(b)funds in bank accounts in the parties’ names jointly and individually, and in the name of their daughter; and

(c)household furniture and motor vehicles.

1 [L] v [J] [2024] NZFC 15325.
2 Family Court Associates may exercise the powers conferred, under any enactment, on a Registrar of the Family Court (see Family Court Act 1980, sch 2, cl 4). A Family Court Registrar may exercise the jurisdiction of a Family Court Judge to hear and determine any with notice interlocutory application, which is not an application for a rehearing (see Family Court Rules 2002, r 221(1) and (1A), and s 16A of the Family Court Act).

[5] In March 2023, Ms L obtained a Family Court order granting an interim distribution of funds in joint accounts at the Westpac bank. Mr J appealed.
Justice Davison dismissed the appeal.3

[6]In dismissing Mr J’s appeal, Davison J found that:

(a)A so-called “Divorce Agreement”, entered between the parties at the time of their second divorce in 2017, did not preclude or restrict Ms L’s claim. The three Auckland properties were not within its scope, and Ms L’s evidence is to the effect that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading J v L

Details

AGLC: J v L [2025] NZHC 1490
Case: [2025] NZHC 1490
Decision Date: 9 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves an appeal by Mr J against discovery orders made by the Family Court against him in ongoing relationship property proceedings with Ms L. The appeal was heard and dismissed by Johnstone J on 9 June 2025. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the discovery order made by the Family Court Associate was too broad and whether it violated the principle that discovery in family court proceedings should not be onerous. The court considered the principles governing discovery in relationship property litigation, emphasizing that a robust approach should be taken, and such discovery must not be unduly onerous. The Family Court Associate had found the material sought to be of clear relevance and that its discovery would be neither unfair nor onerous. The court held that the Family Court Associate was fully entitled to exercise the discretion to make the order that he did, and that the discovery order was one that the efficacy of the proceeding and the broader interests of justice demanded, and therefore not unduly onerous. The appeal was dismissed, and Ms L appeared entitled to costs. If the parties could not agree on the costs, Ms L was to file a memorandum outlining her position by 5 pm on 20 June 2025, and Mr J was to file a reply memorandum by 5 pm on 4 July 2025, with the court determining the issue thereafter on the papers.

Orders