Singh v Singh - [2024] NZHC 2736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2024-404-001944

[2024] NZHC 2736

UNDER Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

the Calvary Indian Assembly of God

CHERYL SINGH
Applicant

SONNY SINGH and RAJESH JATTAN

Interested Parties

On the papers

Counsel:

N W Woods for the applicant

P J Napier and J Leenoh for the interested parties N Taefi KC assisting the Court

Judgment:

20 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

[Interested parties’ application for Beddoe orders]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 September 2024 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SINGH [2024] NZHC 2736 [20 September 2024]

[1] This proceeding concerns the Calvary Indian Assembly of God, a church in East Tamaki (the Church). The Church has a board (the Board). The Board holds assets on trust for the Church (the Trust).

[2] In a judgment dated 6 September 2024 I made Beddoe orders in favour of the applicant.1 In the course of my judgment I addressed a cross-application made by the interested parties for their own Beddoe orders. I said:

[39] I decline to determine the interested parties’ application for Beddoe orders. Tahana J made timetable directions for determination of the applicant’s application for Beddoe orders. The interested parties’ application was made too late to be added to and determined within that timetable.

[40] I will therefore adjourn the application. If the interested parties wish to pursue their application, they will have to seek appropriate directions for its determination.

[3] The interested parties have pursued their application. They obtained directions from Muir J in a minute dated 12 September 2024. These were that submissions were to be filed by the interested parties by 17 September 2024 and by counsel assisting, Ms Taefi KC, by 18 September 2024. Those submissions have been filed. I thank Ms Taefi for assisting the court once more.

[4] The applicant has not filed a notice of opposition to the application. Muir J recorded in his minute that Mr Woods, counsel for the applicant, filed a memorandum that suggested reservations about the grant of Beddoe orders in favour of the interested parties. Muir J directed that, given there was no notice of opposition, the memorandum not be read in the context of the application.

[5] The Beddoe orders sought by the interested parties include an order in respect of a proceeding that has a one-day hearing next week, on 26 September 2024. This judgment will therefore be brief. All relevant background can be found in my judgment of 6 September 2024.

[6] There are some procedural issues with the application. It was made by way of interlocutory application, whereas r 19.4A of the High Court Rules 2016 might be

1 Re Calvary Indian Assembly of God [2024] NZHC 2559.

read as requiring Beddoe applications to be made by originating application. Further, it…

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 [2024] NZHC 2736
Case: [2024] NZHC 2736
Decision Date: 20 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves the Calvary Indian Assembly of God, a church in East Tamaki, which holds its assets in trust (the Trust). The applicant, Cheryl Singh, and the interested parties, Sonny Singh and Rajesh Jattan, are all connected to the church. The dispute revolves around Beddoe orders, which provide funding for legal proceedings that are in the best interest of the Trust. The court was required to decide whether the interested parties were entitled to such orders for their legal proceedings against the applicant. The interested parties sought Beddoe orders to cover the costs of two proceedings: an originating application and a judicial review. The court considered whether the interested parties' application was procedurally sound and whether the objectives of the relevant rules had been met. It found that while the application was not strictly compliant with the procedural requirements, the objectives had been met by other means, and thus the application could proceed on its merits. The court granted the interested parties a Beddoe order for the costs of the originating application, limited to $25,000 and for costs incurred from the date of the application. It also agreed to adjourn the application concerning the judicial review until after the outcome of the originating application. Furthermore, the court ordered that the interested parties could be indemnified from the Trust's assets for their reasonable costs in bringing the Beddoe application.

Orders