Reserved judgment — admission of evidence — privilege — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1N, 13, 15, 17A, 18B, 20E, 21, 21A, 44 & 44C — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 182 — Trusts Act 2019 — Family Courts Act 1980, s 12A — Evidence Act 2006, ss 7, 8 & 65 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 3, 70, 150, 151, 158 & 170 — Brock v Norton [2016] NZFC 468 — Walker v Walker [2006] NZFLR 768 — Vickery v Rahiman [2020] NZFC 10751 — Fullerton-Smith v Fullerton-Smith HC Hamilton CIV-2011-419-615, 26 August 2011 — Dixon v Kingsley [2015] NZHC 2044, [2015] NZFLR 1012. The applicant applied for orders under the Property (Relationships) and Family Proceedings Acts. The orders would require the setting aside of a relationship property agreement that he had entered with the first respondent after their relationship had ended. The only relationship property asset was a farm owned by the second respondent trust. The current proceedings were to consider a series of interlocutory applications filed by both the applicant and the first respondent. The applications concerned admissibility of evidence in the proceedings, as well as discovery. Both the applicant and the first respondent applied to strike out large portions of evidence filed in the proceedings. The Court observed that relevance is always the key issue in determining the admissibility of evidence. Therefore the Court determined that various pieces of evidence were either admissible, or were inadmissible for lack of relevance, for unfair prejudice, or for other reasons. The application under the Trusts Act was discontinued. The Court also made directions for the discovery of various pieces of information. Judgment Date: 1 November 2021