Reserved decision — relationship property — evidence — relevance — Evidence Act 2006, ss 7, 8 & 103 — Family Court Act 1980, ss 9A & 12A — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 3, 15, 158 & 170 — District Court Rules 2014, r 8.40(1) — Indy v Oh [2006] NZFLR 137 — Walker v Walker [2006] NZFLR 768 — Donovan v Graham (1991) 4 PRNZ 311 — Wihongi v Broad [2020] NZFLR 585 — R v Connelly [1964] AC 1254 — Zaoui v Attorney General [2005] 1 NZLR 666 — McMichael v Attorney General [2022] NZHC 2119 — Aivita Healthy New Zealand Ltd v Unipharm Healthy Manufacturing Co ltd [2021] NZHC 1401 — Henwood v Radio New Zealand Ltd (1993) 2 NZPC 129. The applicant sought orders for the division of relationship property. The respondent sought to strike out certain paragraphs in an affidavit that the applicant had sworn. He submitted that the paragraphs were irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial. The Court found that the paragraphs seemed to be aimed at painting the respondent in a bad light. It was not appropriate to include such information in an affidavit. The Court ordered that parts of the affidavit, as well as parts of another affidavit that the applicant had sworn in reply to the respondent's submissions, be struck out. The applicant's reply affidavit was over 600 pages long, and the Court found that much of it was irrelevant and tended to needlessly prolong the proceedings. Therefore the Court ordered the applicant to file a new affidavit specifically stating which parts of her reply affidavit were relevant. The Court also directed the applicant to answer questions in an interrogatory that the respondent had filed. Judgment Date: 12 July 2023