Singh v Singh - [2025] NZHC 1516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-000752

[2025] NZHC 1516

UNDER Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

of the Calvary Indian Assembly of God

BETWEEN

SON SINGH

First Applicant

RAJESH JATTAN

Second Applicant

AND

CHERYL SINGH

First Respondent

CARROL PRASAD

Second Respondent

URMILA NARAYAN

Third Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

Applicants self-represented N W Woods for Respondents

Judgment:

11 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

[on costs]

Solicitors:

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 June 2025 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………..

Rice Craig, Auckland

Copy to Son Singh and Rajesh Jattan

SINGH v SINGH [2025] NZHC 1516 [11 June 2025]

[1] This judgment decides an application for costs following a judgment given in a proceeding concerning a dispute over the membership of the Trust Board and the Church Board of the Calvary Indian Assembly of God (Calvary, sometimes referred to as the Assembly or the Church).

[2] In a judgment dated 3 March 2025, I dismissed the originating application by Son Singh and Rajesh Jattan (the Applicants) for orders under ss 112, 114 and 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 directing that:1

(a)all current trustees on the Trust Board and all current members of the Church Board retire; and

(b)a special meeting of members of Calvary be called to elect five new Trustees/Board members.

[3] In the judgment, I accepted that the Trustees/Board members were at an impasse and that, absent outside intervention or a major change of attitude on the part of the Trustees/Board members, that impasse was not likely to resolved.2 I also accepted that the impasse was to the detriment of Calvary and its operation as a charitable trust and as a church.3 However, I concluded I should not make the orders sought by the Applicants for the reasons set out in the judgment.4 These included that the actions of the Applicants were the reason for the impasse and that I was not persuaded that the orders sought by the Applicants would cure the impasse.5 I also noted that there was on foot another proceeding (namely the Respondents’ application for judicial review) in which similar orders are sought and which was more appropriate for considering whether such orders should be made.6

[4]I held that the Applicants were liable for the Respondents’ costs, subject to a

Beddoe order made by Campbell J on 6 September 2024, and recorded that I

1 Singh v Singh [2025] NZHC 364 [Originating application judgment].
2 At [71].
3 At [71].
4 At [72].
5 At [80]–[82].
6 At [84].

considered costs to be payable on 2B basis.7 However, I gave leave to the parties to file memoranda in accordance with a timetable set out in the judgment.

[5] In the event, the parties were not able to agree, and memoranda were filed. The substantive memorandum filed by the Applicants, who are…

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 Singh v Singh

Details

AGLC: Singh v Singh [2025] NZHC 1516
Case: [2025] NZHC 1516
Decision Date: 11 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This judgment concerns an application for costs following a ruling in a dispute over the membership of the Trust Board and the Church Board of the Calvary Indian Assembly of God. The Applicants, Son Singh and Rajesh Jattan, sought orders under sections 112, 114, and 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 to retire all current trustees and members of the Trust Board and Church Board, and to call a special meeting to elect new board members. However, in a prior judgment dated 3 March 2025, I dismissed the Applicants' originating application, concluding that the Trustees/Board members were at an impasse and that the impasse was detrimental to Calvary. Nevertheless, I decided against making the orders sought by the Applicants, partly because their actions contributed to the impasse and partly because another proceeding was more suitable for considering the orders.

The legal issues before the court were the Respondents' entitlement to costs and whether the orders sought by the Respondents should be granted. The Respondents sought costs of $36,567 calculated on a 2B basis, disbursements of $286, and orders directing Mr Ray Cox to pay Mr Andrew Gilchrist's costs relating to this proceeding and the administration of Calvary. They also sought an order that Mr Cox pay the difference between their actual costs of $64,750 and the Scale Costs. The Applicants argued that the Respondents should not be awarded costs in excess of the indemnity of $25,000 ordered by Campbell J.

The court determined that the Respondents were entitled to costs in relation to the proceeding and matters on which they were successful. However, the Respondents were not entitled to double recovery of their costs. The court reduced the Scale Costs by excluding steps relating to the application for consolidation of proceedings, resulting in an adjusted total of $30,950.50. The court found it appropriate to direct Mr Cox to pay Mr Gilchrist's costs relating to the proceeding but held that it did not have jurisdiction to order payment of Mr Gilchrist's costs relating to the administration of Calvary.

The court ordered the Applicants to pay the Respondents' costs of $30,950.50 plus disbursements of $286. Interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 shall run on those amounts from the date of this judgment to the date of payment. The court also directed Mr Cox to pay the reasonable costs incurred by Mr Gilchrist relating to this proceeding. The costs ordered in this judgment were to be met personally by the Applicants and not by the Trust or the Church Board.

Orders