The manner and type of information sought by accountants retained to act for couples in matrimonial disputes has been criticised by the master of the High Court.
Master Edmund Honohan said yesterday the court would not tolerate "oppressive, vindictive or intrusive" requests from accountants or indulge their "flights of fancy".
He made the remark when dealing with a woman's request for more information about her husband's assets. The wife had raised a matter about the possibility of her husband having unrecorded income. The master accepted this was adequately supported by her own evidence.
However, Mr Honohan said the wife, in support of her discovery application, had exhibited on the headed paper of an accountancy firm an unsigned, undated, seven-page list of 34 items under the heading "information required under discovery". The letter stated the accountants could not report on the man's finances pending the discovery.
To fully appreciate how "outrageous and wholly speculative" the list was, Mr Honohan said it should be known the man had last March discovered bank and credit-card statements and professional audited accounts, dating back to 1995. He had also, the master said, provided clear explanations of discrepancies which the wife thought she had identified.
He said the accountant could not seek discovery simply to have a good look around the man's records to see what he can come up with. "That is fishing - not even an expert is allowed to fish."
The accountant had also not said he had examined the furnished audited accounts of the husband.
The master said there was nothing to suggest Revenue irregularities on the man's part and to suggest otherwise was to cast an unwarranted slur. "The court will not tolerate such an abuse of the accountant's privileged position," he said.
"This is not a Star Chamber. Accountants and other professional have sometimes secured discovery of documents of questionable discoverability simply because the court hasn't the time or expertise to second-guess the professional say-so of the expert witness. As a result, we now have to deal with frequent oppressive, intrusive and vindictive requests of this sort. No longer will they go through on the nod." It was not sufficient to assert that figures provided in documents cannot be audited, he added.
There was no auditing standard for matrimonial cases, the court used "a broad brush" when assessing and apportioning the available incomes and assets.
It was peculiarly inappropriate for the woman to have sought further and better discovery where her husband had already submitted audited accounts, he said. To warrant further discovery there would have to be fairly clear evidence that the accounts did not tell the full story.