Maka v Toailoa - [2025] NZSC 149

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 65/2025
[2025] NZSC 149

BETWEEN	SALETAULUA CHARLES FAAMANATU MAKA AND TONGA SEINI FATA AS TRUSTEES OF THE SAMOAN INDEPENDENT SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST PROPERTY TRUST Applicants
AND	SIAOSI DAVID SOOTAGA TOAILOA First Respondent FEU SEUMAALII Second Respondent PENIATA SAUNIA Third Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL Fourth Respondent SAMOAN INDEPENDENT SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH (SISDAC) AKA REMNANT CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD Fifth Respondent

SC 71/2025
BETWEEN	SAMOAN INDEPENDENT SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH (SISDAC) AKA REMNANT CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD Applicant
AND	SIAOSI DAVID SOOTAGA TOAILOA First Respondent FEU SEUMAALII Second Respondent PENIATA SAUNIA Third Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL Fourth Respondent SALETAULUA CHARLES FAAMANATU MAKA AND TONGA SEINI FATA AS TRUSTEES OF THE SAMOAN INDEPENDENT SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST PROPERTY TRUST Fifth Respondents

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	J D McBride and S E Cameron for Applicants in SC 65/2025 and Fifth Respondents in SC 71/2025 B O’Callahan and R J Warren for First to Third Respondents D L Harris and A A A Ghandour for Fourth Respondent M K Mahuika and T N Hauraki for Fifth Respondent in SC 65/2025 and Applicant in SC 71/2025
Judgment:	30 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

BThe applicants in the two proposed appeals must pay the first to third respondents one set of costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This judgment responds to two applications for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Maka v Toailoa.[1] The applicants in SC 65/2025 are trustees of the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Trust, a charitable trust which we will call SISDA Property Trust, and the applicant in SC 71/2025 is also a charitable trust, the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Church.[2] We will call the church SISDAC. It operates from more than 20 locations in New Zealand.
[1]Maka v Toailoa [2025] NZCA 261, (2025) 6 NZTR ¶35-003 (Hinton, Brewer and Osborne JJ) [CA judgment].
[2]From September 2023 the church has also been known as “Remnant Church of the Living God”: see below at [6].
The applicants are closely related and share the same interest in the proposed appeals.
The three individual respondents are a former pastor of SISDAC and two members of SISDAC’s trust board. The fourth is the Attorney-General, representing the public interest in ensuring that property devoted to charitable purposes is not misused.
The proposed appeals concern orders made by the High Court, and confirmed in varied form by the Court of Appeal, relating to the costs of an action brought by the three individual respondents.[3] They are Beddoe orders and prospective costs orders pursuant to which the SISDAC trust board and, if necessary to ensure payment, the SISDA Property Trust must pay their fair and reasonable costs of the litigation.[4]
[3]See Toailoa v Eliu [2024] NZHC 1412 (Johnstone J) [HC judgment].
[4]See Re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 547 (CA).
The three individual respondents have…

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 Maka v Toailoa

Details

AGLC: Maka v Toailoa [2025] NZSC 149
Case: [2025] NZSC 149
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Maka v Toailoa, the Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with deciding on two applications for leave to appeal, which were brought by the trustees of the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Trust and the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Church against various respondents, including former and current church members. The central dispute revolved around the costs associated with a litigation brought by three individual respondents against the church and its property trust. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in upholding the orders that required the trust to pay the litigation costs of the respondents.

The court was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold the Beddoe orders and prospective costs orders was correct. The applicants contested the standing of the respondents to seek such orders and argued that the preservation orders were excessive and causing financial distress. They also contended that the orders were not in the best interests of the trusts. The Attorney-General supported the orders made by the lower courts, asserting that they were appropriate.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold the orders was correct. The Court of Appeal had held that the individual respondents had standing to apply for the orders, as one was a former trustee and the others were members of the trust board. The Court of Appeal had also concluded that the proceeding was reasonable and appropriate, and in the best interests of the trusts. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the contention that the proceeding was not in the best interests of the trusts had insufficient prospects of success on the facts to justify leave to appeal. The court also observed that the High Court would maintain ongoing oversight of costs as they were incurred.

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed. The applicants were ordered to pay the first to third respondents one set of costs of $2,500. The Attorney-General did not seek costs.

Orders