The wife applied for ancillary relief, and sought disclosure from a third party.
Held: Whilst a party must disclose all documents in his possession, custody or power the court has a discretion whether to order inspection. ‘Custody’ in RSC Ord 24 was held ‘to refer to documents which are in the physical holding of a party but not in his personal capacity, rather qua company director/agent or similarly’.
Dunn LJ said: ‘It is another feature of such proceedings that one party, usually the wife, is in a situation quite different from that of ordinary litigants. In general terms, she may know more than anyone else about the husband’s financial position . . She may . . know, from conversations with the husband in the privacy of the matrimonial home, the general sources of his wealth and how he is able to maintain the standard of living that he does. But she is unlikely to know the details of such sources or precise figures, and it is for this reason that discovery now plays such an important part in financial proceedings in the Family Division.
Applications for such discovery cannot be described as ‘fishing’ for information, as they might be in other divisions. The wife is entitled to go ‘fishing’ in the Family Division within the limits of the law and practice.’
Judges:
Dunn LJ
Citations:
[1978] Fam 181, [1978] 3 WLR 624
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Charman v Charman CA 20-Dec-2005
The court considered orders to third parties abroad to produce docments for use in ancillary relief proceedings. The husband had built up considerable assets within an offshore discretionary trust. The court was asked whether these were family . .
Cited – Mubarak v Mubarik 2003
The court was asked as to whether the expression ‘in the possession of’ in RSC Ord.48 extended to documents not physically held by the judgment debtor but to sight of which he has a clear and enforceable right.
Held: The expression did so . .
Cited – Marketmaker Technology (Beijing) Co Ltd and Others v CMC Group Plc and Others QBD 24-Jun-2009
The claimants sought the committal of the fourth defendant for contempt having broken his undertaking to the court to provide details of his means.
Held: The terms of the undertaking were not ambiguous and could not be read in the way . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.236599