Legal Research
Cases
Matamu v Si'itia

Matamu v Si'itia

Case [2016] NZHC 2516 21 October 2016

Breach of Contract

Repudiation & Termination

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-000170 [2016] NZHC 2516

In the matter of the Avondale Union Parish

BETWEEN

TUIʼIMALO MATAMU, TALAOALIʼI NASERI, MALIELEGAOI AUMUA, SAENI PITA AND TOFA TOFIA TOFA Plaintiffs

AND

VAʼAIMALU SIʼITIA, MARY MCEWING, REV ALISA LASI, REV ROY CHRISTIAN, FORBES WORN AND SALAPO RAPITI TUIA

First Defendants

AND

THE PREBYSTERIAN CHURCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES

Second Defendants

Hearing: 7 June to 10 June 2016

Appearances:

Olinda Woodroffe and Jeffrey Ussher for the Plaintiffs
Richard Pidgeon for the First, Second, Third and Sixth Named
First Defendants
Katie Hogan for the Fourth and Fifth Named First Defendants

Judgment:

21 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 October 2016 at 4:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

MATAMU & ORS v SIʼITIA & ORS [2016] NZHC 2516 [21 October 2016]

Contents

Paragraph Number

Introduction ..............................................................................................................[1] History and background

History and formation of Avondale Parish Union ..................................................[7]

The Samoan congregation ....................................................................................[13] The Pacific Island Synod and Rev Amosa ...........................................................[17] White Sunday and its aftermath ...........................................................................[25] Finances of the AUP.............................................................................................[37] The meeting of 5 December 2013 ........................................................................[46] Procedural history ................................................................................................[57] Present position ....................................................................................................[62] Causes of action and relief sought ........................................................................[64] Jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief ................................................................[68]
What are the applicable rules which apply to Co-operative Ventures?
The rules ...............................................................................................................[76] Breach of Contract .................................................................................................[88] Is there an enforceable contract between the parties? ..........................................[89] Was there a breach? ..............................................................................................[97]
Were the members of the plaintiffs’ group part of the AUP as at
5 December 2013 or had they repudiated their membership?.......................[104] The law on repudiation.......................................................................................[106] Is the test for repudiation met on the evidence?.................................................[107]

Decision on repudiation and reasons .................................................................. [110] (i) Declaration a new church formed ............................................................ [111] (ii) Continuation of Rev Amosa’s ministry ................................................... [118] (iii) Separate organisational structure.............................................................[121] (iv) Financial independence and lack of contributions to AUP .....................[133] (v) Non-attendance at Parish Council meetings ............................................[139] (vi) Discipline and respect for chain of command .........................................[142] (vii) The plaintiffs’ arguments that they had not been removed from

the AUP’s membership roll in accordance with the Book of Order ........[148]

Conclusion on repudiation ..................................................................................[151] Breach of trust ......................................................................................................[154] Breach of fiduciary duties ...................................................................................[162] Result .....................................................................................................................[166] Costs ......................................................................................................................[167]

Introduction

[1] This case represents the culmination of a bitter and longstanding dispute between elements of the Samoan congregation of the Avondale United Parish (“AUP”) and the balance of the congregation.

[2] The dispute centres on the status and property rights of the group represented by the plaintiffs, who have expressed a desire to form a new church.

[3] Following several years of rising tension within the AUP, its Parish Council

voted to disallow the plaintiffs’ group1 the future use of the premises.

[4] The plaintiffs seek declarations that the meeting of the Parish Council at which this vote was taken was not properly notified and improperly constituted with the consequence the motions were invalid.

[5] The determination of this question focuses on whether, in fact, the plaintiffs’ group were…

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 [2016] NZHC 2516
Case: [2016] NZHC 2516
Decision Date: 21 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, a group of Samoan congregants of the Avondale United Parish (“AUP”), sought a declaration that a meeting of the AUP’s Parish Council, at which the plaintiffs’ group was denied future use of the AUP’s premises, was improperly constituted and notified. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the Parish Council members elected at a meeting held prior to the Parish Council meeting were invalid and that the resolutions passed at the Parish Council meeting were unlawful. The plaintiffs further sought a declaration that they were entitled to be notified of the Parish Council meeting and participate as members of the AUP. The first defendants, the representatives of the AUP, opposed the plaintiffs’ claims. The second defendants, the Presbyterian Church Property Trustees, were not the subject of any relief sought by the plaintiffs.

The Court found that the plaintiffs’ group had repudiated their membership of the AUP and were no longer members of the AUP at the time of the Parish Council meeting. The plaintiffs’ group had established a separate church and organisational structure, known as the Pacific Island Church Avondale, and were financially independent from the AUP. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ group had repudiated their membership of the AUP prior to the Parish Council meeting. As a result, their representatives lost their eligibility to serve on the Parish Council, and the remainder of the AUP was entitled to proceed on this basis when electing new members to replace them. The resolutions passed at the Parish Council meeting were lawful and enforceable. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. The defendants, as the successful party, were entitled to costs.

Orders