Property relationship — trusts — de facto relationship — third party discovery — evidence — reserved judgement — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 — Family Proceedings Act 1980 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 5A, 143, 148 & 207 — Family Violence Act 2018 — Taly NDC International NV v Terra Nova Insurance Co Ltd and others [1985] 1 WLR 1359 (CA) — New Mellon Electrical Ltd AAPC NZ Pty HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-268, 13 December 2005 — JAG v CBAR FC North Shore FAM-2009 044-920, 17 May 2011 — McDonald v FAI (New Zealand) General Insurance Co Ltd HC Auckland, CP507/95, 12 September 1997 — Highgate on Broadway Ltd v Devine [2012] NZHC 2590 — MAC v MAC FC Rotorua FAM-2007-063-652, 20 June 2011 — Adams v Adams [2014] NZFC 10654 — Jackson v Gilbertson [2015] 5096 — Jackson v Gilbertson [2013] NZFC 5595 — Campagnie Financiere Du Pacifique v Peruvian Gunao Co 918820 11 QBD 55 3 — Biggs v Biggs [2018] NZCA 546 — Blackley v Blackley [2018] NZHC 2011. This was a reserved judgment that determined the applicant's application for third party discovery. The parties were in a de facto relationship and they had one son together. The applicant was claiming for equal division of property for economic disparity and had filed an application to set aside a property sharing agreement which stated that the shares and trusts were the respondent's separate property. The applicant claimed that the respondent transferred income to two companies post separation. The two companies were the subject of an application for their financial accounts for the last three years. The first company filed a cross application for security for costs, and the second company filed a cross application for expenses. The Judge determined that the evidence the applicant sought in the discovery application was already available in court. The Judge allowed for the first company's evidence to have limited disclosure to the last three years, due to further queries with its relationship to the trust. The Judge determined that a non party in a PRA proceeding could not seek for security costs, but judges' discretion can apply. The costs of providing the information were to be borne by the applicant. Judgment Date: 25 June 2021