AMANDA JUDITH BLACKLEY v DAVID CHARLES BLACKLEY [2018] NZHC 2011

AMANDA JUDITH BLACKLEY v DAVID CHARLES BLACKLEY [2018] NZHC 2011

Given the complexity of the case, credible evidence of suspicious conduct (including alleged concealment and forgery), and the need to trace and classify trust-related funds for s 44C purposes, the Court ordered further discovery of the narrowed Schedule B documents and required the respondent to produce or explain missing documents with third‑party proof in accordance with the High Court Rules.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2011
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Amanda Judith Blackley; Respondent/appellant: David Charles Blackley
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Relationship Property Dispute Under Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Application for Further Discovery in the High Court
Outcome
Application for further discovery granted in respect of the reduced Schedule B; respondent ordered to comply and to explain non‑existence of documents with supporting third‑party proof; applicant to file amended Schedule B for formal order.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Relationship Property, Trust Asset Tracing, Property (relationships) Act S 44 C, Family Proceedings Act S 182, Forgery
Family Law Property Law Trusts Civil Procedure Discovery Relationship Property Trust Asset Tracing Property (relationships) Act S 44 C +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Judith Blackley

Applicant/respondent

David Charles Blackley

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Relationship Property Dispute Under Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Application for Further Discovery in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further discovery is relevant and reasonably necessary
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought exist and must be produced or explained
  3. 3 Classification and valuation of trust assets and tracing of funds for s 44C purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Given the complexity of the case, credible evidence of suspicious conduct (including alleged concealment and forgery), and the need to trace and classify trust-related funds for s 44C purposes, the Court ordered further discovery of the narrowed Schedule B documents and required the respondent to produce or explain missing documents with third‑party proof in accordance with the High Court Rules.

Court Disposition

Application for further discovery granted in respect of the reduced Schedule B; respondent ordered to comply and to explain non‑existence of documents with supporting third‑party proof; applicant to file amended Schedule B for formal order.

Orders

  • Applicant to file the amended Schedule B reflecting the deletions and refinements made at the hearing
  • Respondent to comply with discovery in respect of the amended Schedule B and produce documents that exist