Read the full judgment text of CACV 000410/2005 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 June 2006 before Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA.
Matrimonial proceedings – Discovery – Scope of order – Fishing expedition – Appeal allowed – Paragraphs 4 and 5 of order set aside – The court held that the discovery order was not justified as there was no evidence that the documents were relevant or necessary for fairly disposing of the matter. Standard periods are usually 2 years. The husband had equal access to documents. The wife's assets were disclosed via accountant reports. The husband's concerns were unsupported by affidavit and amounted to speculation. Authorities such as Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland and Re State of Norway’s Application establish that discovery requires evidence of existence, relevance, and possession.
Legal issues: Scope of discovery in matrimonial proceedings · Fishing expedition
Outcome: Appeal allowed; paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order set aside.
Cited by 12 cases