Matamu v Si'Itia - [2018] NZHC 824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2014-404-00170

[2018] NZHC 824

IN THE MATTER of the Avondale Union Parish

BETWEEN

TUI’IMALO MATAMU, TALAOALI’I NASERI, MALIELEGAOI AUMUA, SAENI PITA and TOFA TOFA

Plaintiffs

AND

VA’AIMALU SI’ITIA, MARY MCEWING, REVEREND ALISA LASI, REVEREND

ROY CHRISTIAN (REMOVED), FORBES WORN (REMOVED and SALAPO RAPITI TUIA

First Defendants

THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES

Second Defendants

Hearing: 27 April 2018

Appearances:

O Woodroffe for Plaintiffs R S Pidgeon for Defendants

Judgment:

27 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for orders discharging interim injunction and requiring defendants to be examined as to their means before the Registrar]

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 April 2018 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

MATAMU v SI’ITIA [2018] NZHC 824 [27 April 2018]

[1] This proceeding concerns the affairs of the Avondale Union Parish. The plaintiffs and first defendants are or were members of the Parish.

[2] The plaintiffs filed the proceeding on 31 January 2014 alleging breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants. This occurred after the defendants attempted to prevent them from continuing to use the Parish facilities in or about October 2013. The defendants took that step because they believed the plaintiffs had left the Parish and formed their own Church.

[3] The proceeding was the subject of a lengthy trial before Moore J in June 2016. On 21 October 2016, Moore J delivered a judgment in which he dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.1 His Honour found as a matter of fact that the plaintiffs had elected to repudiate their membership of the Parish.2 The plaintiffs’ appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful,3 as was an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.4 It follows that the plaintiffs have now exhausted their rights of appeal and the present proceeding is substantively at an end.

[4] Two issues remain to be resolved. These relate to existing orders for interim injunctive relief and costs. The defendants now seek an order that the orders granting interim injunctive relief be discharged. They also seek an order requiring the plaintiffs to be examined before a Judge regarding their means. They seek this order because the plaintiffs have failed to pay costs awarded to the defendants by this Court and the Supreme Court.

The application to discharge existing orders for interim relief

[5] The plaintiffs obtained interim relief from Courtney J on 31 January 2014.5 This was subsequently varied on several occasions. The purpose of the interim relief was to permit the plaintiffs to continue to use facilities owned by the Parish until their claims had been determined. The interim relief has remained in place throughout the

1     Matamu v Si’itia [2016] NZHC 2516.
2 At [151].
3      Matamu v Si’itia [2017] NZCA 482.
4      Matamu v Si’itia [2018] NZSC 14.
5      Matamu v Si’itia [2014] NZHC 34.

appeal…

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 [2018] NZHC 824
Case: [2018] NZHC 824
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the plaintiffs, Tuimalo Matamu, Talaoali'i Naseri, Malielegaoi Aumua, Saeni Pita, and Tofa Tofa, sought relief against the defendants, Va'aimalu Si'itia, Mary McEwing, Reverend Alisa Lasi, Reverend Roy Christian, Forbes Worn, Salapo Rapiti Tuia, and The Presbyterian Church Property Trustees. The plaintiffs, who are or were members of the Avondale Union Parish, filed a proceeding alleging breach of trust and fiduciary duty by the defendants, stemming from an attempt to prevent them from using the Parish facilities in October 2013. This action was taken because the defendants believed the plaintiffs had left the Parish and formed their own Church. The case was dismissed by Moore J on 21 October 2016, and appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court were unsuccessful. The defendants now seek to discharge existing interim injunctive orders and require the plaintiffs to be examined regarding their means to pay costs awarded to the defendants by this Court and the Supreme Court.

The court considered the application to discharge existing orders for interim relief. The interim relief, initially granted by Courtney J on 31 January 2014 and varied several times, was intended to allow the plaintiffs to use the Parish facilities until their claims were determined. The defendants applied for the discharge of these orders since the proceeding is concluded, and the plaintiffs have been unsuccessful. The plaintiffs argued for the interim relief to remain in place to allow time for cultural reconciliation and engagement with the wider Pacific Islands community. They also wished to pursue their case before the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. However, the court found that such proceedings would not affect the outcome of the New Zealand legal system and could not disturb the Supreme Court's decision to refuse leave to appeal. The court discharged the orders for interim relief but directed that the discharge would not take effect until 5 pm on Friday, 11 May 2018, to provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs and defendants to reach some form of accommodation.

The court also considered the application for orders requiring the plaintiffs to be examined regarding their means to pay costs. The plaintiffs have paid some of the awarded costs but have yet to pay the costs ordered by this Court and the Supreme Court. The defendants sought an order to examine the plaintiffs' means, despite the final quantum of costs being unknown. The court noted that the plaintiffs acknowledged their need to pay the costs and sought time to resolve the manner in which the debt would be paid. The court directed that the examination of the plaintiffs' means is to take place before a Judge on 29 June 2018, giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to resolve the funding issue and allowing Moore J to fix the final quantum of costs. The defendants were awarded costs on a Category 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

In conclusion, the court discharged the orders for interim relief with a delayed effect, allowing the plaintiffs and defendants an opportunity to reach an accommodation. The court also scheduled an examination of the plaintiffs' means to pay the costs awarded to the defendants by this Court and the Supreme Court, giving the plaintiffs time to resolve the funding issue. The defendants were awarded costs on a Category 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Orders