The distinction between discovery and disclosure can appear esoteric and academic. However, as identified in Hoeberechts v Sprott each serves a different function, the purpose of which warrants the relevant reflection. The temptation, whichever is being sought is overreach. Importantly less truly can be more, and more, can result in so much less that forward propulsion is compromised. As noted in Hoeberechts v Sprott (the facts of which relate only to itself):
 I accept that a distinction is legitimately to be made between a beneficiary’s right to trust information and to discovery which constitutes a function of relevance, proportionality and discretion.Equally, the discovering party is only obliged to provide discovery of documents in his or her control. However, the prima facie entitlement that Lindsay enjoys, at least under New Zealand law, to have access to some of the documents sought provides some support for my finding that the application for trust documents is not a contrivance or an abuse of process.
- Hoeberechts v Sprott  NZHC 3045