Matamu v Si'itia - [2017] NZCA 482

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA581/2016
[2017] NZCA 482

BETWEEN	TUIʼIMALO MATAMU, TALAOALIʼI NASERI, MALIELEGAOI AUMUA, SAENI PITA AND TOFA TOFIA TOFA Appellants
AND	VAʼAIMALU SIʼITIA, MARY MCEWING, REV ALISA LASI, REV ROY CHRISTIAN, FORBES WORN AND SALAPO RAPITI TUIA First Respondents
AND	THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES Second Respondents

Hearing:	2 August 2017
Court:	Clifford, Simon France and Toogood JJ
Counsel:	O Woodroffe for Appellants R S Pidgeon for First, Second, Third and Sixth Named First Respondents No appearance for Fourth and Fifth Named First Respondents No appearance for Second Respondents
Judgment:	24 October 2017 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellants must pay the first respondents costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Introduction

On 5 December 2013, the Parish Council of the Avondale Union Parish (the Parish) passed resolutions excluding a group of its parishioners from further use of the Parish’s facilities. The underlying proposition was that the group had already abandoned their commitment to and membership of the Parish, and were not entitled to use its facilities (including its church). The excluded group unsuccessfully brought proceedings in the High Court challenging the validity of the Parish Council resolutions.[1] They now appeal.

Background

[1]Matamu v Si’itia [2016] NZHC 2516. The remaining respondents are the first, second, third and sixth named first respondents. The second respondents abide.

The Parish was formed in 1972. It represented a coming together of worshippers from the Presbyterian and Methodist churches. The union followed a prescribed formula, the outcome of which is that the worshippers, pursuant to the Union Agreement, form a new parish. Although the entity’s origins lie with these two denominations, thereafter those who affiliate are parishioners of the Parish, and may come from any denomination.
The two original denominations still perform a function, as governance of the Parish vests in them on a rotational basis. For the times relevant to this proceeding, governance of the Parish lay with the Northern Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church. That means a relevant source of rules is the Presbyterian Book of Order. However, more immediate than that are the rules contained in the Procedures for Co‑operative Ventures. These are promulgated by the Uniting Congregations of Aotearoa New Zealand, a co‑operative entity founded by five churches — Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, the Congregational Union Church, and the Christian Churches of New Zealand.
The Parish Council is the Parish’s governance body. Originally for the Avondale Union Church the Council’s membership was drawn five from the Methodist worshippers and five from the Presbyterian worshippers. The Minister of the Parish is also a member. However, over time the makeup of the Parish evolved and so did the makeup of the Parish Council. The proportion of Pacific Island parishioners grew. In 1979 it was decided to have two Ministers, one of whom would have more direct responsibility for the Pacific Island (primarily Samoan)…

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 Matamu v Si'itia

Details

AGLC: Matamu v Si'itia [2017] NZCA 482
Case: [2017] NZCA 482
Decision Date: 24 October 2017 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Matamu v Si’itia involved a group of parishioners who sought to challenge the resolution of the Parish Council of the Avondale Union Parish, which excluded them from using the Parish’s facilities. The underlying proposition was that the group had abandoned their commitment to and membership of the Parish, and were not entitled to use its facilities. The appellants argued that the Parish Council resolutions were invalid and sought injunctions to allow use of the premises. The legal issues in the case were whether the appellants had repudiated their contract with the Parish and whether the vote taken on 23 October 2013 to replace the three councillors was valid. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants had repudiated their contract with the Parish. The Court found that the appellants had declared a new church and made funding pledges for the new church. The Court also held that the vote taken on 23 October 2013 to replace the three councillors was valid. The appellants must pay the first respondents costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

Orders