Re The Foundation for Anti-Aging Research - [2016] NZHC 2328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-3859

CIV-2013-485-3861 [2016] NZHC 2328

IN THE MATTER OF
Appeals against the decision of the

Charities Registration Board, established under section 8 of the Charities Act 2005, declining the appellants' applications for registation as charitable entities under the Charities Act 2005

RE THE FOUNDATION FOR ANTI- AGING RESEARCH AND THE FOUNDATION FOR REVERSAL OF SOLID STATE HYPOTHERMIA Appellants

CIV-2015-485-975

BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION FOR ANTI-AGING RESEARCH AND THE FOUNDATION FOR REVERSAL OF SOLID STATE HYPOTHERMIA
Applicants

ANDTHE CHARITIES REGISTRATION BOARD
First Respondent
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
Second Respondent

Hearing: 16-17 May 2016

Counsel:

V E Casey and S D Barker for Applicants
D Harris and A L Dixon for the First Respondent
D J Perkins for Second Respondent

Judgment:

30 September 2016

RE THE FOUNDATION FOR ANTI-AGING RESEARCH AND THE FOUNDATION FOR REVERSAL OF SOLID STATE HYPOTHERMIA [2016] NZHC 2328 [30 September 2016]

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
11 am on the 30th day of September 2016

Table of Contents

Background: the Foundations and their stated purposes [6] FAAR [6] FRSSH [8] The legal context [12] The registration process under the Act [17] What the Board did here [21] The process [21] The decisions [25] The right of appeal [30] The grounds of appeal and review [31] Procedural matters [35] The advancement of education [49] The Board’s decision [49] The “usefulness” test [55] Additional public benefit requirement [63]
Approach to evidence and the chief executive’s ability to make his own
inquiries [68] Other heads of charity [76] FAAR’s separate ground of appeal [80] Judicial review [90] Conclusions [93] Remedies [95]

[1] The possibility of life after death is, perhaps, one of humanity’s oldest preoccupations. Resurrection is at the heart of Christian ideology. And from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, HG Welles’ When the Sleeper Wakes, Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray, Bram Stoker’s Dracula to B grade zombie movies, the idea that death might somehow be defeated, has long since fascinated creative minds.

[2] The notion that such fiction might, in the future, become a reality is somewhat more recent. Cryonics first began to be thought about seriously in the
1960s. And while there are still many sceptics and detractors, the idea also undoubtedly has serious proponents. For example, in 2004 and 2005 some
62 scientists and academics from across the world put their names to an open letter which stated:

Cryonics is a legitimate science-based endeavour that seeks to preserve human beings, especially the human brain, by the best technology available. Future technologies for resuscitation can be envisioned that involve molecular repair by nanomedicine, highly advanced computation, detailed control of cell growth, and tissue regeneration.

With a view towards these developments, there is a credible possibility that cryonics performed under the best conditions achievable today can preserve sufficient neurological information to permit eventual restoration of a person to full health.

[3] That letter formed part…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re The Foundation for Anti-Aging Research and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 2328
Decision Date: 30 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals were brought by the Foundation for Anti-Aging Research and the Foundation for Reversal of Solid State Hypothermia, both of which sought to be registered as charitable entities under the Charities Act 2005. Their applications were declined by the Charities Registration Board. The Foundations sought judicial review of the Board’s decisions and processes. The appeals and review proceedings were heard together. The Foundations submitted that the Board’s decisions were wrong because the funding of cryonics research was charitable under the “advancement of education” head of charity. They also submitted that the Board’s processes were flawed. The Board submitted that the Foundations’ purposes were not charitable and that the processes followed were appropriate. The Court found in favour of the Foundations on the appeals. It held that cryonics research met the “usefulness” test and was charitable under the advancement of education head. The Court also held that the Board erred in failing to find that the Foundations’ purposes provided sufficient public benefit. The Court did not deal with the judicial review as it was likely to be moot. The Foundations were ordered to be registered as charities under the Act.

Orders