Interlocutory application — discovery by third party — tax forms — relationship property proceedings — self-represented parties — Tax Administration Act 1994, ss 18 & 18D-18H — Child Support Act 1991, ss 104-107 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 15, 18, 32 & 44 — Family Proceedings Act 1980 — Family Courts Act 1980 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 150 — Brainich-Eilander v Ward [2017] NZFLR 258. The applicant applied for an order under r 150 of the Family Court Rules ("FCR") that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue produce tax documents relating to the respondent's income and sources for several years. The application was part of the parties' Property (Relationships) Act ("PRA") proceedings and both parties were self-represented. The applicant submitted that her child support payments may have been miscalculated as there were undisclosed sources of income of the respondent. The respondent opposed the application, claiming he had produced enough documentation to resolve the issues arising under ss 15-32 of the PRA. The Commissioner also opposed the application on the basis that disclosure of the information pertaining to the respondent would amount to a breach of the confidentiality requirements under s 18 of the Tax Administration Act, and none of the exceptions in ss 18D-18H applied. Pursuant to FCR, r 150 a court could make an order that a party produce a document if it is in the possession, custody, or power of the party or person and relates to a matter in question in the proceedings; but that if the application is brought under the Child Support Act, the provisions of the Tax Administration Act apply. The substantive proceedings were under the PRA and the applicant also tried to argue that PRA, s 32 (relating to orders available to the Court for maintenance and child support in relationship property proceedings) applied, but the Judge did not agree that s 32 could override the specific provisions of the Tax Administration Act. The Judge declined to make an order for discovery. As the parties were self-represented, the Judge also outlined for their benefit the law surrounding obligations for discovery of financial information in relationship property proceedings. During the course of the hearing, the respondent agreed to share some information with the applicant, specifically documents he had received from IRD in relation to the interest earned and the source of the interest earned. Judgment Date: 25 June 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *