Discovery — division of relationship property — company — bank accounts — life insurance — shares — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 141 — Dixon v Kingsley [2015] NZFLR 1012 — Biggs v Biggs [2018] NZCA 546 — White v Hewett [2015] NZHC 1749. In the course of relationship property proceedings, the applicant sought discovery of the respondent's bank accounts. The main assets to divide were a company, motor vehicles and chattels. There had been movements of money around the time of the parties' separation and the respondent had been uncooperative in providing financial details and evidence. There were four relevant sets of accounts: company accounts in the respondent's name, the respondent's personal bank accounts (open during the relationship), a joint account and a personal account opened by the respondent after the relationship breakdown. The applicant also sought disclosure of information regarding shares, personalised number plates and life insurance. The Judge referred to case law on discovery in the Family Court and stated that full disclosure and transparency is required. However, the scope of discovery must be determined by relevance and reasonable necessity. Further, the need for transparency is not justification for a far more onerous discovery than otherwise would be necessary. In respect of a bank account under the respondent's name for the company, the Judge ordered full disclosure for the period 2014 to 2018. The account was relationship property and there would be no privacy issues or great difficulty in providing this information. The applicant also sought disclosure of the respondent's personal bank accounts. The respondent had provided information from 2017 to 2018 but the applicant sought disclosure from 2014 when the parties had briefly separated. The respondent submitted this was unduly onerous. The Judge agreed to an extent that the period of time sought by the applicant was onerous, but thought some backdating before the end of the relationship was necessary. Disclosure was ordered from April 2016. The applicant sought disclosure of the parties' joint accounts, but counsel for the respondent submitted that as the applicant had access to the accounts up to July 2017, it should not fall on the respondent to provide them. The Judge deemed this issue one of convenience, possession and control. If the respondent or his accountant had copies of the accounts they were to provide them. If they did not, the applicant would have to obtain the information herself. The applicant sought discovery of a personal bank account opened by the respondent post-separation. Disclosure was sought in respect of any statements for those accounts in the respondent's name or in the name of any entity associated with the respondent from the date of opening the accounts to the date of the affidavit of list of documents. This disclosure was ordered as it was necessary to have all information relating to the company which was still being operated by the respondent. Finally, the application for disclosure regarding the shares, personalised number plates and life insurance was granted. Judgment Date: 3 May 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *