Radmanovich v Nedeljkovic
[2002] NSWSC 763
•28 August 2002
CITATION: Radmanovich v Nedeljkovic [2002] NSWSC 763 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1354/99 HEARING DATE(S): 14, 21 June 2002 JUDGMENT DATE: 28 August 2002 PARTIES :
Maksim Radmanovich (First Plaintiff)
Stevan Dobrich (Second Plaintiff)
Drago Mijakovac (Third Plaintiff)
Kosta Nedeljkovic (First Defendant)
Nikola Lukic (Second Defendant)
Duro Radan (Third Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF: Master McLaughlin
COUNSEL : Mr G.B. Colyer (Plaintiffs)
Mr S. Glacken (Defendants)SOLICITORS: McCabe Terrill Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Nicholas G Pappas & Co. Solicitors (Defendants)CATCHWORDS: Voluntary association - Church-School Community - List of members - Adjudication of disputes as to persons entitled to be members - Rules of the Community - Effect of excommunication from Church upon membership of Community - Meaning of phrase "ineligible for membership". CASES CITED: Crumblin v Kerr (1987) 72 ALR 461
Faramus v Film Artistes' Association [1963] 2 QB 527; [1964] AC 950
Woodford v Smith [1970] WLR 806DECISION:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
MASTER McLAUGHLIN
Wednesday, 28 August 2002
1354/99 MAKSIM RADMANOVICH and ORS -V- KOSTA NEDELJKOVIC and ORS
JUDGMENT
1 MASTER: The background to this matter is set forth in the reasons for judgment published by Mr Justice Young, Chief Justice in Equity, on 15 June 2001 and 15 October 2001. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse that background. For present purposes it is sufficient to state that the substantive proceedings concern the trusts affecting land as Elanora Heights on which are erected buildings known as the Serbian Orthodox Church–School, St. Sava. His Honour said that the basal question for determination before him was whether the trusts affecting the relevant land are for the Serbian Orthodox Church as a whole (as contended by the Defendants) or whether they are solely for the First Serbian Orthodox Church-School Community St. Sava Warriewood-Mona Vale (as contended by the Plaintiffs). (That latter unincorporated body will hereafter in this judgment be referred to as “the Church-School Community” or “the Community”.)
2 On 15 October 2001 His Honour made orders to carry into effect the reasons for judgment published by him on 15 June 2001.
3 Those orders included a declaration as to the trust upon which the Elanora Heights land is held by the Plaintiffs as registered proprietors thereof. His Honour made orders for the removal of the First and Second Plaintiffs as trustees of the trust and for the appointment of the First and Second Defendants as trustees. (They, together with the Third Defendant, as a continuing trustee, were referred to thereafter in His Honour’s orders as “the Trustees”.)
4 Order 12 is in the following terms,
Order that the Trustees be directed:
12.1 To settle a provisional list of members of the Church School Community;
12.3 Subject to the supervision of the Court to exercise powers of the Management Committee of the Church School Community for the purpose of convening an Extraordinary Meeting of the Church School Community to elect a Management Committee in accordance with the 1950 Rules.12.2 Any dispute as to the provisional list be referred for adjudication by a Master;
5 It will be appreciated that the list of members of the Church School Community is needed for the trustees, in exercising the powers of the Management Committee of the Church School Community (pursuant to Order 12.3), to convene an extraordinary meeting of the Church School Community to elect a Management Committee in accordance with the 1950 Rules. The trustees, pursuant to the duty imposed upon them by Order 12.1, settled a provisional list of members of the Church School Community, that provisional list being exhibit MR2 to the affidavit of the First Plaintiff, Maksim Radmanovich, sworn 25 January 2002.
6 Disputes having arisen as to the correctness and completeness of the provisional list, those disputes were, pursuant to Order 12.2, referred to me for adjudication. The hearing of such adjudication was specially fixed to commence on 4 March 2002. However, on that date I was informed that the parties were not in agreement as to the effect of the order made on 15 October 2001, and that they proposed to approach Mr Justice Young in order to seek clarification of that order. The matter came before His Honour on 13 March 2002. On that date His Honour delivered ex tempore oral reasons concerning the effect of the reservation of liberty to apply, especially in contradistinction to a reservation of further consideration. His Honour on that date did not make any orders, but merely delivered reasons. His Honour said that the parties should return to the Master and have him deal with the matter according to law. His Honour ordered that the costs of the appearance before him on 13 March 2002 should be costs of the proceedings before the Master.
7 As a consequence of the reasons published by Mr Justice Young on 13 March 2002 the trustees revised the provisional list. That revised provisional list is annexure F to the affidavit of the Second Defendant, Nikola Lukic, sworn 12 April 2002.
8 The dispute as to the provisional list (as revised) is raised by the Plaintiffs in the affidavits of Maxim Radmanovich sworn 25 January 2002 and 13 May 2002.
9 I have had the benefit of receiving written outlines of submissions from Counsel for the respective parties. Those written submissions will be retained in the Court file. I would take this opportunity of here recording the considerable assistance given to me by Counsel for the respective parties, both in the written submissions and during the course of the hearing.
10 In paragraph 4.1 of the Defendant’s submissions (being the amended outline of submissions dated 14 June 2002) it is stated that the starting point for the consideration of the material is the common ground between the parties as to who were members of the Community before the 1998 disputes arose. That common ground is evidenced by the list of members dated 5 June 1997 which is annexure A to the affidavit of Jovan Jaramaz sworn 29 January 2002. Subject to certain qualifications, the Trustees accept that that list is an accurate record of the persons who were members of the community as at 5 June 1997 (see affidavit of Nikola Lukic sworn 12 April 2002, paragraph 27).
11 For convenience, during the hearing both Counsel and myself worked from the list which was Schedule C to the amended outline of submissions of Counsel for the Defendants dated 14 June 2002. I shall in this judgment continue to use the numbering appearing in that list.
12 From the list prepared on 5 June 1997 the Trustees, in the revised list, have:
· Removed two persons who have resigned – Danilo Cukic (13) and Ilija Strinich (81).
· Removed one person who is deceased – Drago Opacic (65).
· Removed two persons who have been suspended under sentence from the Church Court – Jovan Djurasinovic (21) and the Second Plaintiff, Stevo Dobrich (25).
· Removed three persons who have been excommunicated under sentence from the Church Court – the First Plaintiff, Maksim Radmanovich (74), the Third Plaintiff, Drago Mijakovac (58) and Jovan Jaramaz (38).
· Added fourteen persons, who, according to records relied upon by the Plaintiffs, were members as at 8 March 1998.
· Added eleven persons, who, according to records in the possession of the Trustees, were members as at 8 March 1998.
13 For the reasons set forth in my oral judgment delivered during the course of the hearing on 14 June 2002 in respect to the objection by the Plaintiffs to the second sentence in paragraph 2 in the affidavit of Nikola Lukic sworn 12 June 2002 and to exhibit NL1, I rejected the evidence in relation to the aforesaid additional fourteen persons included in the Trustees’ Revised List.
14 Upon the same basis the Plaintiffs objected to the second sentence in paragraph 3 of the same affidavit and to exhibit NL2 to that affidavit. For the same reasons as those set forth in respect to the earlier objection to paragraph 2 and to exhibit NL1, I rejected the evidence in relation to the aforesaid additional eleven persons included in the Trustees’ Revised List.
15 Although the Defendants did not concede that the persons in the two groups identified in paragraphs 33b and 33c of the affidavit of Nikola Lukic were not members of the Community, in consequence of the ruling which I made concerning admissibility of evidence in respect to the application forms of those persons the Defendants did not thereafter assert that those persons should be included in the list of members of the Community.
16 In consequence, therefore, of my foregoing rejection of the evidence in respect to applications for membership by the persons in the two aforesaid groups, in my conclusion neither the fourteen persons who were added to the Trustee’s Revised List and who are referred to in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid affidavit nor the eleven persons whose names are included in the Trustee’s Revised List and who are referred to in paragraph 3 in the said affidavit are members of the Community.
17 In the event, however, that I be wrong in my foregoing conclusions, it is appropriate that I should record that of the foregoing fourteen persons, eight names were excised at the instance of the Defendants themselves, those being Novica Danilovic (2), Zeljko Dragic (3), Dusan Krstanovic (4), Mitar Miskovic (8), Vitomir Petrovic (9), Slobodan Popovic (10), Milos Radovanov (11), Bosko Skrbic (12).
18 It follows, therefore, that even if the totality of the fourteen persons not be removed for the reasons set forth in my judgment on admissibility of evidence of 14 June 2002, of those fourteen names the Defendants assert only six should remain, those six being Djordje Covic (1), Boro Lovric (5), Djuro Markovic (6), Dragan Markovic (7), Slobodan Stojanovic (13), Zeljke Sucevic (14).
19 Further, it should also be recorded that of the additional eleven names included in the Trustees’ Revised List, two names were excised therefrom at the instance of the Defendants themselves, those being Slavoljub Kocic (6), Velimir Prodanovic (10). That is, of those eleven names the Defendants assert only nine should remain, those nine being Slobodan Bubalo (1), Zivota Djurdjevic (2), Djuro Draca (3), Nikola Grubic (4), Zarko Jaric (5), Mirko Mihic (7), Slobodan Pavlovic (8), Milan Perkovic (9), Bratislav Stankovic (11).
20 It follows, from the foregoing, that in my conclusion, of the Trustees’ Revised List which is now presented to the Court, only the names of the first eighty-nine persons will be considered as being available to be members of the Community.
21 It should here be recorded that the Plaintiffs no longer contend that any of the applications for membership which were made or any expulsions which took place after March 1998 should be taken into account in determining the list of members of the Community who will be entitled to vote at the contemplated extraordinary meeting of the Community.
22 Of the foregoing eighty-nine names the Defendants seek to exclude members who have resigned, have died, have been suspended, or have been excommunicated.
23 There is no dispute between the parties that the following person named in the 1997 list is now deceased:
Drago Opacic (65)
24 Neither is there any dispute between the parties that the following persons whose names were included in the 1997 list have subsequently resigned from the Community:
Danilo Cukic (13); Ilija Strinic (81).
25 It is also appropriate here to record that the parties were in agreement that a further person whose name appears on the list, Jovan Djurasinovic (20) should not be included in the list of members. Further, one person whose status was originally disputed by the Plaintiffs (being Slobodan Tosic (82)) is not now the subject of any dispute, the Plaintiffs no longer asserting that he is not a member of the Community.
26 Of the names then remaining from the 1997 list, there were names of five persons whose status as members of the Community continued to be in dispute. Four of those persons had been excommunicated from the Church and those excommunications were still in effect. Those persons were Stevan (or Stevo) Dobrich (25), Jovan Jaramaz (38), Drago Mijakovac (58) and Maksim Radmanovich (74). Their status as members of the Community was disputed by the Defendants. In addition, the status of Otac Nenad Djurasinovic (21) was disputed by the Plaintiffs.
27 It is appropriate that I should deal with the four persons whose status as members is disputed by the Defendants on account of the fact that those four persons are subject to orders for excommunication which orders remain in effect. The circumstances relating to those excommunications of Maksim Radmanovich, Drago Mijakovac and Jovan Jaramaz (each for a period of five years from 23 September 1998) and Stevan Dobrich (excommunicated for a period of three years from the aforesaid date) are set forth in the affidavit of Father Miroslav Popovic sworn 24 April 2002, paragraphs 14, 19, 20, 22.
28 It is submitted on behalf of the Defendants that, by virtue of Articles 4 and 6.3 of the 1950 Rules those persons are neither qualified nor eligible for admission to membership of the Community. It will be appreciated that the 1950 Rules were recognised by Hardie J as being operative and binding upon the Community and its members (Popovic v Cukic, 9 February 1967), and that, in consequence of the orders of Mr Justice Young (in particular, order 4, being a declaration that the March 1998 Rules are of no force and effect), the 1950 Rules remain in force and effect.
29 Article 4 of the 1950 Rules is as follows,
- Members of the Community are only those members of St. Sava’s Orthodox Church, who have voluntarily accepted duties and obligations set out by the Church-School Rules and thus acquired the right to participate in its activities.
30 Article 6 is in the following terms,
The following persons are ineligible for membership of the Church-School Community:
1. Persons under 18 years of age.
3. Persons who are proved to be active against the Church, the Diocese and the Orthodox Religion.2. Persons who are proven to be immoral in their behaviour and life, and who would scandalise others.
- 4. Persons who publicly declare to be, and can be proven to be anarchists, communists, nihilists, and bigamists.
31 It is submitted on behalf of the Defendants that the effect of the findings made and the penalties imposed by way of excommunication by the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Court of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand upon the foregoing persons is that those persons are ineligible to be included in the provisional list because they are not “members” of the Serbian Orthodox Church (Article 4) or because they have been “proved to be active against the Church, the Diocese and the Orthodox Religion” (Article 6.3).
32 As I understand it, the Defendants do not dispute that the persons who have been excommunicated by the Ecclesiastical Court were properly and validly admitted as members of the Community. What the Defendants assert is that those persons, upon their excommunication, ceased automatically to be members of the Community.
33 If it can be established that by virtue of excommunication a person ceases to be a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church (described in Article 4 as “St. Sava’s Orthodox Church”), then it seems to me that such person has ceased to be a member of the Community. An analogy which comes to mind would be the situation where someone who was accepted as a member of the Community whilst a member of the Orthodox Church, later chose to convert to some other religion (be it Christian or non-Christian), then that person could no longer be described as a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Membership of the Community seems to me to require a continuity in the status of membership of the Church.
34 It was observed, however, on behalf of the Plaintiffs that there is no provision in the Rules that has the effect of terminating a member’s membership in the event of that person being excommunicated. That is true. Nevertheless, it is not the bare fact of excommunication which, in my conclusion, has the result of causing the person to cease to be a member of the Community; it is the fact that an automatic consequence of the excommunication is that the person ceases to be a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It is implicit in Article 4 of the 1950 Rules that continuing membership of the Church is essential to membership of the Community.
35 I am of the view, therefore, that the effect of Article 4 is that a person who was a member of the Community but who subsequently has been excommunicated thereupon ceases to be a member of the Community.
36 That conclusion is of itself sufficient to determine the status of those persons upon the 1997 list who have subsequently been excommunicated.
37 Nevertheless, in the event that I be wrong in my foregoing conclusion, it is appropriate that I consider the further submission on behalf of the Defendants that persons who have been excommunicated are, in the words of Article 6, “ineligible for membership” of the Community.
38 As I understand it, the Defendants rely, in respect to those persons who have been excommunicated, only upon the preclusion set forth in Article 6.3 (“persons who are proved to be active against the Church, the Diocese and the Orthodox Religion”). No submission has been placed before me on behalf of the Plaintiffs that I should not treat the fact of excommunication as constituting proof that the persons subject to excommunication are active against the Church, the Diocese and the Orthodox Religion. The submissions have been concerning the effect and meaning to be attributed to the phrase “ineligible for membership”.
39 It has also been submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that membership of the Community must be determined within the ambit of the 1950 Rules and not outside the ambit of those Rules. In this regard it was submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (Exhibit MP1 to the affidavit of Father Miroslav Popovic, 24 April 2002) has no application to the determination of whether or not a person subject to excommunication is “ineligible for membership” of the Community. I do not accept that submission.
40 As I have already observed, it is implicit in Article 4 that continuing membership of the Church is essential to membership of the Community. The structure and organisation of the Church in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are governed by the Constitution to which I have just referred. Provision is made in that Constitution for the Ecclesiastical Court which has imposed the excommunication upon the four persons whose status as members of the Community has been the subject of dispute. Whilst that status must be determined within the ambit of the 1950 Rules, nevertheless, in making that determination the Court cannot disregard the basis upon which the excommunication took effect. (It should also here be observed that the Constitution itself contemplates the existence of a Church-School Community (Articles 54-93).)
41 I have been taken to a number of decided cases concerning the effect and meaning to be given to the word “eligible”. In Faramus v Film Artistes’ Association [1963] 2 QB 527; [1964] AC 950 the English Court of Appeal and later the House of Lords were concerned with a rule of an organisation that provided that no person convicted of a criminal offence “shall be eligible for, or retain membership of, the Association”. In the conclusion of Lord Evershed (at 940) and of Lord Pearce (at 945) the word “eligible” was held to mean “qualified for” [for example, election] (as distinct from, for example, “suitable for” [for example, election]). In Woodford v Smith [1970] WLR 806 at 813 Megarry J (as he then was) reached the same conclusion in respect to the phrases “eligible for election” and “eligible for membership”. To similar effect was the decision of Neaves J (in the Federal Court of Australia) in Crumblin v Kerr (1987) 72 ALR 461, where His Honour said, at 466, “The meaning of the word ‘eligible’, as that of any other word, may vary with its context.”
42 In my conclusion, and consistently with the foregoing judicial decisions, the use of the phrase “ineligible for membership” in Article 6 has the effect of precluding the person from membership. That is, so long as the person comes within one or more of the three categories set forth in Article 6, the person cannot validly be a member of the Community. In my conclusion, the fact of excommunication brings the person so excommunicated within the description contained in Article 6.3, and, in consequence, that person thereupon is precluded from membership. I regard the provisions of Article 6 as being peremptory in their operation and effect.
43 In this regard the Plaintiffs attempt to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, persons who are not members and apply to become members of the Community, and, on the other hand, persons who are already members of the Community. In regard to the former the Plaintiffs accepted that the effect of excommunication would, in the light of Article 6.3, preclude those persons from becoming members of the Community, but the Plaintiffs submit that in the case of persons who were already members of the Community the fact of excommunication did not have that automatic and peremptory effect.
44 I do not agree with that submission. For the reasons which I have outlined, it is my conclusion that the fact of excommunication automatically, and without more, results in the person excommunicated being ineligible for membership and, in consequence, automatically ceasing to be a member. (See Faramus, at 551-552 per Diplock LJ (Court of Appeal).)
45 On behalf of the Plaintiffs it was also submitted that such a peremptory and automatic result of excommunication constitutes, in respect to each of the persons thus excommunicated, a denial of natural justice.
46 What the Plaintiffs appear to be doing by such a submission is attempting to challenge the essential validity of the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the Ecclesiastical Court. If the four persons excommunicated by the Ecclesiastical Court consider that the sentence of that Court constituted a denial of natural justice and was thus invalid, then it was open to those persons to challenge such sentence, either in accordance with the constitutional provisions of the Church itself (both the Constitution of the Church in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church itself (Exhibit MP2 to the affidavit of Father Miroslav Popvic, 24 April 2002) or to challenge such sentence by appropriate legal proceedings in a Court of Equity. They have not chosen to do so. I do not consider it appropriate that such a challenge should be raised in this tangential fashion during the course of the adjudication as to, not the validity of the excommunication, but the effect of the excommunication.
47 It follows from my foregoing conclusions that none of the four persons who have been excommunicated should be included in the list of members of the Community.
48 I have already referred to the fact that the Plaintiffs dispute that Otac Nenad Djurasinovic (21) is a member of the Community. Father Djurasinovic is the Parish Priest of the Orthodox Parish. Article 26 of the 1950 Rules is in the following terms,
- The Parish Priest is an ex-officio member of the Management.
49 I assume, and I have heard no submissions to the contrary, that the reference to “the Management” in Article 26 is a somewhat loose reference to “the Managing Committee” (which is the subject of Articles 22-31). (I notice that there are a number of misprints and typographical errors in the copy of the 1950 Rules which is in evidence (Exhibit MR1 to the affidavit of Maksim Radmanovich sworn 25 January 2002).) In this regard I would observe that at paragraph 11 of his judgment of 15 June 2001 Mr Justice Young spoke of how a small group of migrants would commence a Church/Community centre “without great thought to constitutional issues. Often a local solicitor assists in the drawing up of a constitution from a precedent from a democratically run club or congregational church.” There is no other reference in the 1950 Rules to “the Management”.
50 The procedure for a person desirous of becoming a member of the Community is set forth in Article 5 of the 1950 Rules. There is no suggestion that Father Djurasinovic has ever sought to comply with that procedure. Indeed, his status as Parish Priest of the Church is dealt with in Articles 42-46. The fact that he is an ex-officio member of “the Management” (which I shall regard as meaning “the Managing Committee”) suggests to me that he is to be treated in a separate and distinct category in the affairs of the Community, and that he is not to be regarded as a member of the Community for the purposes, for example, of voting at an extraordinary general meeting. In my conclusion, therefore, Farther Djurasinovic should not be included in the list of members of the Community.
51 For completeness, I should also refer to the submission made on behalf of the Plaintiffs in respect to the family of the late Sava Srzentic, who in 1952 donated a parcel of land at Mona Vale to the Church-School Community. On the second day of the hearing before me, 20 June 2002, there were filed in Court a number of affidavits by various members of the family of the late Sava Srzentic.
52 The suggestion was made on behalf of the Plaintiffs that those persons should also be treated as members of the Community. In this regard, it will be observed that the names of none of those persons appear on any list upon which the Plaintiffs themselves rely. The Plaintiffs, however, invoke Article 48 of the 1950 Rules. That article appears to contemplate (although grammatically and syntactically its meaning is not entirely clear) that, in addition to ordinary members of the Community (referred to therein as “regular members”), there shall also be a category of “honourary [sic] members”, who themselves fall into two classes, being “BENEFACTORS who pay five pounds sterling once and for all” and “GREAT BENEFACTORS, who make a single payment of fifteen pounds sterling”. The article continues,
- All the above categories of members need not be regular members of the Community, nor indeed adherents to the Serbian Orthodox Faith.
53 Whatever might be regarded as the effect of Article 48, I do not see how the mere fact that certain persons are related by blood or marriage to the original donor of land upon which the Community at an early stage of its existence conducted its activities can in any way entitle those persons to be treated as members of the Community.
54 As a result of my foregoing decisions concerning the various objections made to names included in the Trustees’ Revised List, it will be appreciated that the members of the Community will consist only of the first eighty-nine names in that revised list, apart from the following, who, in my conclusion, are not members of the Community:
- Danilo Cukic (13)
Jovan Djurasinov (20)
Otac Nenad Djurasinov (21)
Stevan Dobrich (25)
- Jovan Jaramaz (38)
Drago Mijakovac (58)
- Drago Opacic (65)
Maksim Radmanovich (74)
- Ilija Strinich (81)
55 For the convenience of the parties, I shall annex to these reasons for judgment a list of the persons who, as a result of my foregoing conclusions, are the persons who are members of the Community.
56 The task committed to me by Order 12.2 of the orders made by Mr Justice Young on 15 October 2001 does not include the making of costs orders in respect to the matters upon which I have had to adjudicate and the hearing before me on 14 June 2002. As I understand it, those costs would be a matter for His Honour pursuant to Order 14 (“further questions of costs reserved”).
57 For the assistance of His Honour, however, I would observe that the Plaintiffs successfully objected to the fourteen names and the eleven names referred to in paragraphs 33b and 33c respectively of the affidavit of Nikola Lukic sworn 12 April 2002. Further, of the other names which were disputed, the Defendants successfully opposed the inclusion of four persons in respect of each of whom an excommunication was still in effect, and the Plaintiffs successfully opposed the inclusion of the name of Father Djurasinovic, the Parish Priest. There was no dispute concerning the removal from the Trustees’ Revised List of four further names (resulting from death, resignation or suspension).
58 Of the list of fourteen persons referred to in paragraph 33b of the affidavit of Nikola Lukic, eight names were excised at the instance of the Defendants, and of the list of eleven names referred to in paragraph 33c of Mr Lukic’s affidavit, two names were excised at the instance of the Defendants.
59 A significant part of the hearing was taken up with the question of the inclusion of the two additional categories of fourteen names and eleven names respectively to which I have just referred (and the admissibility of evidence relating to the names in those two categories). The Plaintiffs were successful in their opposition to all names in those two categories. The other significant area of dispute was in relation to excommunication. In respect to the four persons whose excommunication remains in force, the Defendants successfully opposed the inclusion of those four persons.
60 In my estimation the hearing time resulting in the success of the Plaintiffs in opposing the inclusion of the two foregoing categories referred to in paragraph 33b and 33c of the affidavit of Nikola Lukic was balanced by the hearing time resulting in the success of the Defendants in opposing the inclusion of the four persons subject to excommunication. A consideration of the effect of excommunication perhaps occupied a somewhat greater part of the hearing time than was devoted to the two foregoing categories referred to in the affidavit of Nikola Lukic.
61 However, on balance, I consider that there has been, in general terms, equivalent success by each party concerning the inclusion or exclusion of names which were in dispute. It will also be appreciated that there were a number of names which were originally included in the Trustees’ Revised List and were subsequently removed, either at the instance of the Defendants themselves, or by agreement between the parties, and thus which did not require my adjudication.
62 It would in my opinion be appropriate, therefore, that there should be no order in respect to the costs of the hearing before me or the costs of and incidental to the adjudication of any disputes in respect to the provisional list of members of the Community prepared by the Defendants.
**********
ANNEXURE
Members of the Church-School Community
28 August 2002
Nikola Amanovic
Brian Amanovic
Milivoje Bibic
Mile Brujic
Dejan Bubalo
Dragan Bubalo
George Bubalo
Nedjo Bubalo
Vlado Bubalo
Bosko Coric
Djuro Crnomarkovic
Zoran Cucac
Slobodan Cveticanin
Dujo Cvijanovic
Miso Cvijanovic
Stevo Cvijanovic
Milan Damjanovic
Mihailo Danilovic
Stojan Djurasinov
Milan Dmitrovic
Petar Dobrich
Jovan Dojcinovic
Vlado Dojcinovic
Ilija Dokic
Sinisa Dragisic
Dane Drazic
Nikola Drazic
Rajko Gajica
Jovan Grkinic
Mane Grubic
Mladen Hajdukovic
Petar Hajdukovic
Srecko Ilijasevic
Stanimir Jovanovic
Marko Kalik
Marinko Kaurin
Nikola Keca
Rajko Keca
Mirko Korda
Milan Kosanovic
Stevo Kovacevic
Todor Krstanovic
Djordje Lakic
Gojko Lakic
Jovan Lakic
Nikola Lovric
Stojan Lovric
Danilo Lukich
Nikola Lukich
Mirko Macura
Slavko Macura
Veseljko Malinovic
Jovo Mijakovac
Mile Mijalica
Brane Miskovic
Kosta Nedeljkovic
Petar Nedeljkovic
Milivoj Novakov
Mane Popovic
Milan Popovic
Milos Popovic
Mirko Prica
Rade Prica
Nikola Prodanovich
Djuka Radan
Petar Radan
Gojko Rakic
Drago Ribic
Ljubo Ristic
Mirko Samardzic
Milos Siljic
Ratko Skocic
Slobodan Tosic
Djurica Trifunovic
Nikola Urukalo
Zdravko Vrankovic
Nikola Zaric
Bozo Zavodja
Dane Zavodja
Milorad Zavodja
0
0