Matamu v Si'itia

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 124/2017
[2018] NZSC 14

BETWEEN	TUIʼIMALO MATAMU, TALAOALIʼI NASERI, MALIELEGAOI AUMUA, SAENI PITA AND TOFA TOFIA TOFA Applicants
AND	VAʼAIMALU SIʼITIA, MARY McEWING, ALISA LASI AND SALAPO RAPITI TUIA Respondents

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	O Woodroffe for Applicants R S Pidgeon for Respondents
Judgment:	14 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

In December 2013 the Parish Council of the Avondale Union Parish passed resolutions excluding a group of parishioners (including the applicants) from further use of the Parish’s facilities. This was on the basis that the group had already abandoned its commitment to, and membership of, the Parish.
The applicants unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the resolutions in the High Court.[1] The Court of Appeal’s decision dismissed the appeal.[2] The applicants seek leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision.

Our assessment

[1]Matamu v Si’itia [2016] NZHC 2516 (Moore J).

[2]Matamu v Si’itia [2017] NZCA 482 (Clifford, Simon France and Toogood JJ).

The arguments the applicants seek to raise essentially amount to a challenge to the factual findings of the High Court and in large part repeat the arguments made in the Court of Appeal which were fully considered by that Court. There are no issues of general public importance. Further, nothing raised by the applicants suggests any risk of a miscarriage of justice.[3]

Result

[3]Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60, (2006) 18 PRNZ 369 at

[4]–[5].

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.

Solicitors:
Woodroffe Law Partnership, Auckland for Applicants
Pidgeon Law, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Matamu v Si'itia was heard by Elias CJ, William Young, and Glazebrook JJ. The applicants, a group of parishioners, had previously been excluded from using the Parish's facilities by the Parish Council of the Avondale Union Parish. The applicants had challenged the validity of the resolutions that led to their exclusion in the High Court, but their challenge was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the appeal, and now the applicants seek leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the applicants' challenge to the factual findings of the High Court and the validity of the resolutions passed by the Parish Council. The applicants argue that the Court of Appeal did not properly consider the evidence and made errors in its decision. However, the Supreme Court found that the arguments raised by the applicants were essentially a challenge to the factual findings of the High Court, which had already been considered by the Court of Appeal. The Court also found that there were no issues of general public importance and no risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondents. The Court found that the applicants' arguments did not raise any new issues or demonstrate any risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court also noted that the applicants' arguments largely repeated the arguments made in the Court of Appeal, which had already been considered and dismissed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents. The Court found that the applicants' arguments did not raise any new issues or demonstrate any risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court also noted that the applicants' arguments largely repeated the arguments made in the Court of Appeal, which had already been considered and dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established