Na'Amanu v Morisa - [2023] NZHC 3599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-002225

[2023] NZHC 3599

BETWEEN
MAOIAUTELE LAMOSITELE NA’AMANU and TAULA PERRY YOUNG

Plaintiffs

AND

VENI MORISA

First Defendant

TAFUNA’I MUAIAVA
Second Defendant

FA’AMANU PENIATA
Third Defendant

SAMOAN ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IN NEW ZEALAND (INC)

Fourth Defendant/First Named Co-Applicant

…/2

Hearing: 7 December 2023

Appearances:

O Woodroffe for Plaintiffs/Respondents

S Keall and M Orange for Applicants/Defendants J Barrow for First Defendant V Morisa

Judgment:

8 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 December 2023 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

NA’AMANU v MORISA [2023] NZHC 3599 [8 December 2023]

SAMOAN ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IN AOTEAROA CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD
Fifth Defendant/Second Named Co-Applicant

ASB BANK LTD
Second Respondent (Non Party)

HEARTLAND BANK LTD
Third Respondent (Non Party)

Solicitors: Fortune Manning, Auckland
Woodroffe Lawyers, Auckland Lee Salmon Long, Auckland
Timaloa Law, Manukau, Auckland Counsel: S Mount KC/A Longdill, Auckland
S Keall, Auckland

Current application

[1] The matter before the Court for determination is an on notice 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 orders in relation to:

(a)the operation of the Trust Board’s bank accounts;

(b)the Church Hall; and

(c)orders in relation to the proposed fourth respondent (the Intended Sixth Defendant) the partners of Woodroffe Law; and

(d)procedural directions.

Background

[2] Regrettably, there is a history of litigation involving the parties before the Court. In a first amended statement of claim dated 14 November 2023 the plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments and associated orders confirming that the election of the first defendant, Pastor Veni Morisa as treasurer of the National Fellowship at the April 2022 election was unconstitutional and was therefore null and void. Although the first three causes of actions refer to different factual issues they all seek the same relief. In a fourth cause of action the plaintiffs allege against Pastor Tafunai’i Muaiava and Pastor Peniata that they have made false, misleading and incorrect statements in relation to a related proceeding in CIV-2022-404-1349. In a fifth cause of action they seek orders that the unilateral appointment of Pastor Morisa as Treasurer on 11 November 2022 is null and void. In the sixth cause of action they seek relief arising out of an incident in relation to the Church Hall property at 38 Robertson Road, Mangere.

[3] In a judgment delivered on 31 October 2023 in separate but related proceedings CIV-2022-404-1349 Muir J declined to set aside the notice of change of solicitor and

notice of discontinuance in proceedings between the SAOGNZ and Pastor Morisa.1 The proceedings had originally been commenced by Mrs Woodroffe’s firm. However the SAOGNZ instructed Mr Mount KC to represent it and file a discontinuance. Muir J summed up the background:

[1] The plaintiff (known to the parties as “the…

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 [2023] NZHC 3599
Case: [2023] NZHC 3599
Decision Date: 8 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, considered an on notice 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), seeking orders regarding the operation of bank accounts, control of the Church Hall, and procedural directions. The application was made against Maoiauteletele Na'Amanu and Taula Perry Young, represented by Olinda Woodroffe, and Veni Morisa. The Court also heard arguments from the SAOGNZ's counsel, S Keall, and from J Barrow representing the first defendant, Veni Morisa.

The legal issues before the Court involved the validity of the removal of the plaintiffs from their positions as Trustees and members of the Executive Council of the SAOGNZ and Trust Board, and whether the applicants had the right to control the bank accounts and Church Hall. The Court had to consider whether there was a serious question to be tried, assess the balance of convenience, and determine the overall interests of justice. The application was primarily supported by the affidavit of Pastor Peniata, while the plaintiffs relied on affidavits from Paul Moriarty and Pastor Sauafea Fa'atuatua. The Court had to interpret the evidence and formation documents to resolve the dispute.

The Court found that the SAOGNZ and Trust Board had established a serious question to be tried regarding the validity of the removal of the plaintiffs and the appointment of new Trustees. The General Council's Special Session was validly constituted, and the removal of the plaintiffs and the appointment of new Trustees was supported by an overwhelming majority. The Court noted that the bank accounts were frozen, hampering the administration of the Trust, and the Church Hall was inaccessible to the applicants. The balance of convenience favoured granting the orders to the applicants, as the majority supported their position, and third parties were affected by the impasse. The Court concluded that the interests of justice supported breaking the impasse and enabling the church members to focus on unity.

The Court granted the orders in terms of the attached schedule, allowing the applicants to regain control of the bank accounts and Church Hall. The Court adjourned the remaining aspects of the application, including the proposed joinder of Olinda Woodroffe and Colin Woodroffe as partners in the firm of Woodroffe Law Partnership, to the duty Judge list for further direction. The applicants were entitled to costs on this application, fixed on a 2B basis against the plaintiffs.

Orders