Na'Amanu v Morisa - [2024] NZHC 928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-002225

[2024] NZHC 928

BETWEEN
MAOIAUTELE LAMOSITELE NA’AMANU and TAULA PERRY YOUNG

Plaintiffs/Applicants

AND

VENI MORISA

First Defendant/First Respondent

TAFUNA’I MUAIAVA
Second Defendant/Second Respondent

FA’AMANU PENIATA
Third Defendant/Third Respondent

…/2

Hearing: 24 April 2024 (by telephone)

Appearances:

R Marsich for Plaintiffs/Applicants

S Keall for Fourth and Fifth Defendants/Respondents

Judgment:

26 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Applications under r 7.49 and for stay

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 April 2024 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Fortune Manning, Auckland
Douglas M A Burgess, Auckland

Counsel:R Marsich, Auckland S Keall, Auckland

NA’AMANU v VENI MORISA [2024] NZHC 928 [26 April 2024]

THE SAMOAN ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IN NEW ZEALAND (INC)
Fourth Defendant/Fourth Respondent
THE SAMOAN ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IN AOTEAROA CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD
Fifth Defendant/Fifth Respondent
WOODROFFE LAW PARTNERSHIP
Sixth Defendant/Sixth Respondent

Introduction

[1] In a judgment delivered on 8 December 2023, the Court granted an interim injunction on the application by the fourth and fifth defendants, The Samoan Assemblies of God in New Zealand (Inc) (SAOGNZ) and The Samoan Assemblies of God in Aotearoa Charitable Trust Board (Trust Board), for access to and control over all the Trust Board’s bank accounts.1

[2] The Court directed that Maoiautele Lamositele Na’amanu’s and Taula Perry Young’s (the plaintiffs) authorisations to deal with the bank accounts be removed and gave authorisation to operate the accounts to Taloolema’agao Soi Afoa, Tanfuna’i Muaiava, and Fa’amanu Peniata. The Court also made orders in relation to control of the church hall.

[3]The judgment followed a hearing the previous day on 7 December 2023.

[4] The plaintiffs have filed an amended application seeking to vary the orders made under r 7.49 and have also made an application for stay.

Procedural background to the applications

[5] Ms Woodroffe appeared as counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents at the hearing in December. On 15 December 2023 the plaintiffs instructed new solicitors and counsel. The new solicitor, Salamasina Toilolo filed an application under r 7.49 High Court Rules 2016 seeking to vary the order for interim injunction.

[6]The application sought orders:

(a)replacing Pastor Tanfuna’i Muaiava as a signatory with any one of the other pastors who were purportedly appointed to the Trust Board in August 2022, (other than Pastor Veni Morisa) as the third authorised signatory; and

1 Na’amanu v Morisa [2023] NZHC 3599.

(b)as a condition of the interim order the respondents were, on request, to provide the second-named plaintiff copies of the account statements and records.

[7] The application was not referred to me (as the rule contemplates) but instead was listed for call in the duty Judge list. The SAOGNZ and Trust Board filed a notice of opposition. Before the matter was called, the plaintiffs instructed another solicitor and counsel, Mr Marsich.

[8] On 13 February van Bohemen J adjourned the application to enable Mr Marsich time to…

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 Na'Amanu v Morisa

Details

AGLC: Na'Amanu v Morisa [2024] NZHC 928
Case: [2024] NZHC 928
Decision Date: 26 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Na’Amanu v Morisa, the plaintiffs Maoiautele Lamositele Na’amanu and Taula Perry Young applied to vary and rescind interim orders previously granted in December 2023, which had given control of the Samoan Assemblies of God in New Zealand (Inc) and The Samoan Assemblies of God in Aotearoa Charitable Trust Board’s bank accounts to certain individuals. The plaintiffs also sought a stay on the enforcement of the costs ordered in the December judgment. The defendants opposed the applications. The legal issues were whether the amended application was within time and, if so, whether it should be granted on its merits and whether the stay application should be granted. The Court found that the amended application was out of time and did not warrant an extension. Even if it were timely, the Court would have dismissed it on its merits as it was an attempt to relitigate issues already decided. The Court also dismissed the stay application as the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of the costs order. The Court reserved the issue of costs pending any agreement between the parties.

Orders