Discovery — discovery order against non-party — relationship property proceedings — application to set aside agreement — contracting out agreement — division of relationship property — serious injustice — extra-marital affair — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 21 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 141, 143 — Dixon v Kingsley [2015] NZHC 2044, [2015] NZFLR 1012 — Nagle v Winthrop [2016] NZFC 10516 — AMP v Architectural Windows Limited [1986] 2 NZLR 190 — Re Securitibank Ltd (No 31) (1984) 1 PRNZ 514 at 520. See also Jackson v Gilbertson [2015] NZFC 5096 — M v DB FC North Shore FAM-2009-044-726, 30 April 2010 — B v B (1978) 3 WLR 624 — Sunderland v Sunderland [1986] 2 NZLR — Wilson v White [2005] 3 NZLR 619 — Taylor Preston Ltd v Algie HC Wellington CIV-2007-485-1443, 5 September 2007 — Mao v Mao [2020] NZHC 1292 — Clear Communications Ltd v Telecom Corp of NZ Ltd (1994) 8 PRNZ 200 — Wheeler v Pagetti [2016] NZFC 4436. The parties had been married and had entered into a contracting out agreement under s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act ("PRA"). The applicant applied for an order setting aside the agreement and, if successful, orders for the division of the relationship property. This interlocutory hearing was to determine discovery applications by the applicant against the respondent and a non-party, the respondent's current de facto partner with whom the applicant alleged the respondent had had an affair. Rule 141 of the Family Court Rules ("FCR") governs discovery applications after proceedings have commenced in respect of other parties to the proceedings and r 143 governs discovery applications in respect of non-parties. The principles applying to relationship property proceedings are that: a robust approach consistent with the need for just division, inexpensive and efficient access to justice; discovery must not be unduly onerous; it must be reasonably necessary at the time sought; the scope of discovery should be tailored to the need of the court to dispose of the issues under the PRA; and more substantial discovery may be ordered by the court if there is reason to believe a party has concealed information. The information sought by the applicant related to: various bank accounts owned by the respondent in both New Zealand and China; joint bank accounts of the respondent and non-party; bank accounts of the non-party and other people in both New Zealand and China; a WeChat "Red Pocket" account of the respondent both during the marriage and after; shares owned by the respondent in a business in China during the course of the marriage and shares of the non-party in a business in New Zealand; details of a property purchase by the non-party just months after separation of the applicant and respondent which the applicant alleged the respondent contributed towards; rental accommodation of the respondent post-separation; Immigration New Zealand (INZ) records of the non-party; passport and travel records of the non-party for two defined period (to support the allegation of an affair); and the purchase of two motor vehicles by the respondent. The Judge granted discovery of the bank accounts (and WeChat "Red Pocket" account) solely of the respondent and the joint account between the respondent and the non-party, but declined to grant discovery of bank accounts of the non-party and others as there was insufficient evidential basis for the disclosure of these and the application was not tailored to limit unreasonable disclosure. Disclosure of shares of the non-party in the business was also declined as it only applied if the application to set aside the agreement was successful. Discovery of the respondent's shares in the Chinese business during the course of the parties' relationship was granted but disclosure of post-separation details was only appropriate if the setting aside agreement was successful. Discovery of the non-party's INZ details was declined as any relevant information in relation to this should have been contained in the file on the respondent. Details of the non-party's travel history via his passport was granted for only one of the periods sought as there was no evidential basis for disclosure of the earlier period. The application in relation to the two motor vehicles was declined. The Judge also made further directions on timeframes for discovery and next steps. Judgment Date: 25 August 2020.