McCready v Whitireia Independent Students' Association Incorporated HC Wellington CIV 2010-485-1576

[2010] NZHC 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2010-485-1576

BETWEEN  GRAHAM EDWARD MCCREADY Applicant

ANDWHITIREIA INDEPENDENT STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

Respondent

Hearing:         11 November 2010

Appearances: G E McCready (In Person) Applicant

B Bevan for Respondent
J Sumner for Whitireia Polytechnic

Judgment:      11 November 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

[1]      Mr McCready moves for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from my judgment of 11 October 2010, contending that I was wrong to find he lacks standing and abused the processes of the Court;   that I was further wrong to find that the Students’ Association is solvent and that he lacked authority to file tax returns on its behalf.

[2]      However, it is common   ground before me today that the decision affected substantive rights and liabilities and so is prima facie appealable under s 66 of the Judicature Act.   My attention has been drawn to no provision requiring that the appeal be made by leave.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal will be dismissed without prejudice to Mr McCready’s ability to bring it again should I be

wrong in that conclusion.

GRAHAM MCCREADY V WHITIREIA INDEPENDENT STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION HC WN CIV 2010-

485-1576  11 November 2010

[3]      Also before me is an application, in the form of a memorandum, from the Students’ Association seeking an amendment to the injunction granted restraining Mr McCready from acting in any way as agent of the Association unless and until he is so appointed by the Executive or elected by a duly constituted meeting of the Association.   That application is based upon a letter which he wrote to the Association’s banker, ASB, updating the bank on the alleged state of insolvency of the Association.

[4]      I decline to extend or amend the injunction.   I note that Mr McCready has undertaken not to interfere further in the affairs of the Association pending the student body elections which are to be on 18 November.  In any event, I do not think it appropriate to restrain him from communicating with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue or the bankers to the Association.   What he is prohibited from doing is representing himself as the Association’s agent.  I note that the Association has the ability to supply my judgment of 11 October to any interested parties.

Miller J

Solicitors:

Kapimana Legal Services Limited, Porirua for Respondent