Roebeck v Ngati Paoa Trust Board

[2016] NZHC 2458

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-1610 [2016] NZHC 2458

IN THE MATTER	of the Trustee Act 1956
AND
IN THE MATTER	of an application for removal of Trustees and for other directions
BETWEEN	DANELLA PATSY ROEBECK Plaintiff
AND	THE NGATI PAOA TRUST BOARD Defendant

Hearing:	19 May 2016
Appearances:	H K Gladwell for Plaintiff No appearance for Defendant
Judgment:	14 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 October 2016 at 4:14 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:

Mr H K Gladwell, Insight Legal, Warkworth

ROEBECK v THE NGATI PAOA TRUST BOARD [2016] NZHC 2458 [14 October 2016]

[1]      The defendant, the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board (the Board), was incorporated under  the  Charitable  Trusts  Act   1957   in   December  2004.     This   followed establishment  of  the  Ngāti  Paoa  Trust  (the  Trust)  by  deed  made  in  or  about November 2004 (the deed).   Stated in broad terms, the charitable purposes of the Trust are to advance the interests of Ngāti Paoa.

[2]      The duties and powers of the Board are governed by a charter as well as by the deed.   Section 22(1) of the deed requires the trustees to have a charter.   The charter is the Charter of The Ngāti Paoa Trust (the Charter).

[3]      The plaintiff, Mrs Roebeck, is a member of Ngāti Paoa.   As such she has rights as specified in the deed and in the Charter.  Mrs Roebeck contends that the Board has failed to meet obligations it has under the deed and the Charter, and that the Trust is not being governed as required. There are three broad contentions:

(a)      The deed requires the trustees at all times to maintain a register of all adult members of Ngāti Paoa and make ongoing efforts to add members to the register, but the Board has failed to do these things.

(b)For the purpose of maintaining an up to date register, the Charter stipulates procedures for verifying membership of Ngāti Paoa at a properly constituted meeting of trustees, but that cannot occur because there is no properly constituted board.

(c)      The Board is not properly constituted because the number of properly elected trustees is now three rather than ten as required and elections of trustees have not been held as required.

[4]      Mrs Roebeck seeks orders to rectify these matters.   The Board has been served, but has taken no steps.

[5]      Because the Trust has been incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act, Mrs

Roebeck is entitled to bring this proceeding against the Board notwithstanding that

her complaints, to a considerable extent, are that there have been defaults by the trustees.

[6]      There is evidence from Mrs Roebeck in support of her claim, which I have reviewed in conjunction with the terms of the deed and the Charter.   I have also received written and oral submissions from Mr Gladwell, for Mrs Roebeck.   I am satisfied that most of the orders sought by Mrs Roebeck should be made, but with modifications.

The register of members and verification of membership of Ngāti Paoa

[7]      Section 13 of the deed provides:

13.      Trustees to maintain register of Ngāti Paoa

(1)      The Trustees  must, at all times,  maintain a register  of the  adult

members of Ngāti Paoa.

(2)      The Trustees must–

(a)      include in the register the contact details and date of birth of each adult member; and

(b)      make ongoing efforts to add members to the register; and

(c)      keep the information in the register current.

(3)      The Trustees may not refuse to include any bona fide adult member

of Ngāti Paoa in the register.

(4)       The Trustees have the right to require a member of Ngāti Paoa to be included in the register as a co-requisite to that member’s right under section 17(1).

(5)      The  Trustees  may,  in  addition  to  the  requirement  described  in

subsection (1), maintain a register of all members of Ngāti Paoa.

Section 17(1), referred to in s 13(4) above, provides for election of trustees.   The election process is discussed more fully below.

[8]      Section 22(5) of the deed provides:

The charter –

(a)       must contain –

(i)       a definition and a description of Ngāti Paoa; and

(ii)      the procedures of Ngāti Paoa  for verifying eligibility for

membership of Ngāti Paoa; and

(iii)     the vision of Ngāti Paoa; and

(iv)     the dispute-resolution procedures of Ngāti Paoa; and

(b)      may contain –

(i)       a section setting out the role of tikanga and the governance of the trust; and

(ii)      any other matters that Ngāti Paoa thinks fit.

[9]      Part C of the Charter sets out the procedures for verifying membership of Ngāti Paoa.  A person seeking membership is required to make an application for registration as a member.  On receipt of an application, the trustees are required to convene a meeting to consider the application for membership.  There are detailed provisions in that regard.  A person who is determined to be eligible for membership must then be entered on the register.

[10]     Mrs Roebeck’s evidence establishes that, as she put it, there is no “robust whakapapa verified” register but, because of other problems, the process stipulated in the deed and the Charter for getting a properly verified register of members cannot be implemented.  In other words, there is a catch 22.

[11]     A failure to maintain an up to date properly verified register is in breach of s 13 of the deed.  But essential provisions for verifying eligibility for membership, under part C of the Charter, cannot be implemented because there is no properly constituted board, for reasons I come to.  An election of trustees carried out in the prescribed way would overcome this difficulty, but a properly conducted election requires, amongst other things, an up to date register compiled in accordance with the verification procedure.

[12]     Mrs Roebeck sought to resolve this catch 22 in a practical way by proposing that a verification committee be established.  Under s 68(1) of the Trustee Act 1956 the Court is empowered to “make such order in the premises as the circumstances of the case may require”.  This wide power is subject to two express limitations, but

neither applies.  Mrs Roebeck has proposed seven persons, including herself, to be the members of the validation committee.  The Board has chosen not to contest Mrs Roebeck’s  application.    Mrs  Roebeck’s  evidence  also  establishes  that  there  is pressing need to get a properly constituted and operative board.

[13]     In the circumstances I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make a direction that the members of the validation committee be those proposed by Mrs Roebeck, including herself, but that the three remaining trustees (as referred to below) should also be members of this committee.   The verification procedure contemplates a meeting of trustees, and under s 16(1) of the deed that means ten natural persons. These orders will effectively produce that result, through the validation committee, to deal with the deadlock that would otherwise remain.

Elections

[14]     Section 16(1) of the deed requires ten trustees.  Ten trustees were appointed following an election in June 2011, but for two reasons there has been no properly constituted board for a considerable period of time.

[15]     The  first  reason  is  that  there  are  now  only  three  trustees.    Four  of  the remaining seven trustees resigned (one in 2012 and three in 2013) and three others were removed, apparently by other trustees for failure to attend meetings.   Four replacement trustees were appointed by the remaining trustees.   Under s 19 of the deed there is power “to fill any vacant office of Trustee by invitation”.  However, under s 19(2), the original vacancy must be filled by appointment in accordance with s 17(1) “as soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of the vacancy”.  That has not occurred and three years or more have passed since vacancies occurred.

[16]     The second reason there is no properly constituted board is that new elections should have been held in 2015.  This is because s 17(2) of the deed provides that no trustee may hold office for more than four years without that trustee’s position being subject to a further election.

[17]     On  the  evidence  before  me,  there  is  clear  need  for  properly  conducted elections to take place without delay.  For reasons already discussed, that will first

require a proper updating of the register of members following verification.   The Board has responsibility for conducting the election.  Because there is no properly constituted board, I consider that it is necessary and appropriate to appoint the seven members of the validation committee, together with the remaining three trustees, to implement and oversee the new election process.

Other orders sought

[18]     Mrs Roebeck sought an order that the existing trustees be removed from office.  No trustee has been named as a defendant and no trustee has been personally served.   In these circumstances Mr Gladwell accepted that this order could not be made.

The formal orders

[19]     For the reasons recorded above, I make the following orders:

(a)      A committee of ten persons is appointed, to be called “the validation committee”.   The members of the validation committee are the following persons provided each gives his or her consent:

(i)The three remaining trustees from the election conducted in June  2011,  namely:  Miria Andrews,  Lorna  Dixon-Rikihana and George Kahi.

(ii)The following persons: Danella Patsy Roebeck, Harry Poara Williams, Charlie Takahoangakingwai Peters, Howard Hauaru Rawiri,  Tania  Rawiri,  Cora  Kaiwaki  Nahu  and  Percy  Te Awaroa Thompson.

(b)If  any of  the  persons  named  in  the  preceding  order  (a)  does  not consent to be a member of the validation committee, those who do consent may co-opt further members.  The validation committee shall not exceed ten persons.

(c)      The validation  committee at  its  first  meeting  shall  adopt  a set  of standing orders for the conduct of their meetings and decision making which standing orders should be consistent, as far as reasonably possible,  with  the  provisions  of  schedule  1  to  the  Deed  of Trust establishing the Ngāti Paoa Trust (the deed).

(d)The validation committee is empowered to, and shall, in accordance with s 13(2)(b) of the deed, “make ongoing efforts to add members to the register”, referred to in s 13(1) of the deed, of the adult members of Ngāti Paoa.

(e)      The validation committee is empowered to, and shall, determine eligibility for membership of Ngāti Paoa, and inclusion in the register of members, in accordance with the verification procedures specified in part C of the charter of the Ngāti Paoa Trust (the Charter), subject to such modifications as may reasonably be required having regard to the fact that the verification procedures are to be implemented and followed by the validation committee rather than the trustees of the Trust.

(f)      Upon the validation committee being satisfied that all reasonable and proper steps have been taken to compile an up to date register of members, the validation committee is empowered to, and shall, forthwith commence the procedures stipulated in the deed and the Charter for an election of ten trustees and shall complete the election process and formal appointment of new trustees in accordance with the relevant provisions of the deed modified to the extent necessary having regard to the terms of these orders.

(g)The powers and duties of the validation committee shall cease upon appointment of the new trustees.

(h)Notwithstanding the preceding orders, the validation committee may, for  the  purpose  of  implementing  any  matter  contemplated  by  the

preceding orders, or for any other purpose generally consistent with the  purposes  of  the  preceding  orders,  convene  a  hui-a-iwi.    The process in that regard shall be governed, so far as applicable, by the provisions of s 48 of the deed.

[20]     Leave is reserved to Mrs Roebeck, and to the validation committee, to apply for variation of these orders.

Costs

[21]     Mrs Roebeck sought costs.  She is entitled to costs to be assessed on a 2B basis, together with reasonable disbursements.   Mrs Roebeck is to submit a memorandum itemising the costs and disbursements sought.  The claim for costs and

disbursements is to be assessed by the Registrar.

Woodhouse J