Pritchard v Evans - [2013] NZHC 3150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-003014 [2014] NZHC 3150

IN THE MATTER of an application for review under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and an application for declaration under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

BETWEEN SAMUEL HAROLD PRITCHARD Plaintiff

ANDROSS EVANS and MARGARET LEWIS as trustees of the ONEHUNGA WORKINGMEN'S CLUB
Defendants

Hearing: 24 October 2013

Counsel: S Perese for Plaintiff
RO Parmenter for Defendants

Judgment: 28 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Keil & Associates, Auckland. S Perese, Auckland.
Daniel Overton & Goulding, Auckland. RO Parmenter, Auckland.

PRITCHARD v EVANS [2013] NZHC 3150 [28 November 2013]

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1] Suspension [4] Removal as a trustee [13] The relevant legislation and rules [21] Removal as trustee – failure to act fairly [27] Approach [31] The lead-up to the meeting [36] The meeting [42] Removal of trustee – the timing of the special general meeting [47] Claim that Mr Pritchard not unfit to be removed – resolution invalid [53] Conclusion [59] Result [63] Costs [65]

Introduction

[1] The Onehunga Workingmen’s Club was formed in 1947 under the Friendly Societies Act 1909. The Club has a declining membership but still provides an important avenue for social interaction of people living in the Onehunga community, both men and women. It has both a constitution and rules. It is a registered society under s 11(1) of the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 (the Act).

[2] The plaintiff Samuel Pritchard has been a member since 2006 and was elected a trustee in 2011. His triennial term as trustee would have ended at the 2014 annual general meeting, but for his removal as trustee in 2013.

[3] On 15 November 2012, there was an incident at the Club. Mr Pritchard had ordered a takeaway meal which, when he opened it back at his home, proved to be lacking two eggs. He telephoned to complain, and there was then a verbal exchange between him and the person in charge of the bistro restaurant. Following that, Mr Pritchard returned to the Club where he spoke face to face with the restaurant manager about the deficient meal. There is a factual dispute concerning what happened in this exchange. The restaurant manager asserts that Mr Pritchard was very threatening and abusive towards her and swore at her. Mr Pritchard denies this. This set in train a sequence of events which has led to Mr Pritchard’s suspension as a

member and removal as a trustee of the Club. Mr Pritchard seeks to quash the decisions in this judicial review application.

Suspension

[4] After the incident on 15 November 2012 a report was prepared by the secretary/manager of the Club. On 16 November 2012, a letter was sent advising Mr Pritchard that he had been suspended until the next ordinary meeting of the committee where 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 Pritchard v Evans

Details

AGLC: Pritchard v Evans [2013] NZHC 3150
Case: [2013] NZHC 3150
Decision Date: 28 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Samuel Harold Pritchard, brought an application for review and declaration against the Onehunga Workingmen's Club, represented by its trustees Ross Evans and Margaret Lewis. The plaintiff, a member and former trustee of the Club, sought to challenge his suspension and removal from the Club. The Court considered whether the Club's decisions to suspend and remove the plaintiff were lawful. The Court found that while the suspension was procedurally unfair, the removal of the plaintiff as a trustee was lawful. The Court quashed the suspension but dismissed the claim for relief in relation to the removal as a trustee. The Court held that the Club's actions in removing the plaintiff as a trustee were in accordance with the rules and did not breach the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff's suspension was quashed as it was found to be a breach of natural justice. The Court did not award costs to either party, leaving it to the parties to agree on costs or for the plaintiff to file submissions on costs within 14 days if no agreement was reached.

Orders