Fa'Afuata v Amituana'i - [2016] NZHC 2727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-2160 [2016] NZHC 2727

BETWEEN
ALAIMOANA ALOFA FAʼAFUATA,

SAUVAO VAʼALELE APULU AND

SALANI KARAPANI First Applicants

AND

REVEREND PAULO IERIKO Second Applicant

AND

REVEREND VII AMITUANAʼI

Respondent

Hearing: 1 November 2016

Appearances:

O Woodroffe for the Applicants
E Telle for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 November 2016 at 11am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:

Woodroffe Lawyers, Auckland. Neilsons Lawyers, Auckland.

FAʼAFUATA & ORS v AMITUANA’I[2016] NZHC 2727 [15 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] The first applicants are representatives of some members of the Evangelical Samoan Wesleyan Otahuhu Methodist Church (the Otahuhu Church) which falls under the umbrella of the Evangelical Samoan Wesleyan Methodist Church New Zealand (the NZ Church). The second applicant is the president of the NZ Church (the President).

[2] The applicants seek injunctive relief to allow them to use the manse at 2

Kingsford Place, Otara (the Manse) which is currently occupied by the respondent, Reverend Vii, and his family, and is being used by him and the other members of the Otahuhu Church for their church services.

[3] The Manse is owned by the board of trustees of the Otahuhu Church (the

Board) which is a charitable trust registered pursuant to the Charitable Trusts Act

1957 (the Act).

[4] The applicants claim that Reverend Vii was the Minister of the Otahuhu

Church until his position was terminated by the NZ Church by a decision taken on

26 April 2016. They say that Reverend Vii refuses to accept his dismissal from the Church, however instead of challenging the decision by due process, he has instead denied that he has been dismissed and remained at the Manse contrary to the best interests of the Otahuhu Church and the purpose for which the Manse is held by the Board.

[5] Reverend Vii opposes the application for injunctive relief.

Background

[6] In early 2000, Reverend Vii became a minister of the NZ Church and in early

2001, was made the minister of the Otahuhu Church.

[7] In February 2003, at a meeting of representatives of the NZ Church and the

Otahuhu Church congregation, the purchase of a manse for the Otahuhu Church was

discussed. It was determined that they should form their own charitable trust for that purpose and in October 2003, the Otahuhu Church incorporated a charitable trust (the Trust) and appointed the Board. Six trustees were appointed including Reverend Vii, Alaimoana Fa’afuata (the first named first applicant) and four others.

[8] In 24 March 2008, the Board met to appoint new trustees as some of the original trustees had passed away or retired. Reverend Vii and Mr Fa’afuata remained on the Board and six new trustees were appointed.

[9] The applicants say at a meeting on 12 April 2014, trustees were appointed and removed. Reverend Vii denies that such meeting ever took place and says, even if it did,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Fa'Afuata v Amituana'i

Details

AGLC: Fa'Afuata v Amituana'i [2016] NZHC 2727
Case: [2016] NZHC 2727
Decision Date: 15 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fa'Afuata v Amituana'i, involved a dispute between members of the Evangelical Samoan Wesleyan Otahuhu Methodist Church (the Otahuhu Church) and Reverend Vii, who was the minister of the Otahuhu Church and the owner of the manse at 2 Kingsford Place, Otara (the Manse). The applicants, who were representatives of the Otahuhu Church and the Evangelical Samoan Wesleyan Methodist Church New Zealand (the NZ Church), sought injunctive relief to allow them to use the Manse. They claimed that Reverend Vii was no longer the minister of the Otahuhu Church, having been dismissed by the NZ Church, and therefore he had no right to occupy the Manse. Reverend Vii opposed the application for injunctive relief. The High Court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunctive relief. The Court found that there was a serious question to be tried as to whether Reverend Vii was entitled to occupy the Manse. However, the balance of convenience favoured the preservation of the status quo, and therefore the application for injunctive relief was dismissed. Costs were reserved and the parties were encouraged to seek a constructive resolution of their differences.

Orders