Singh v Singh
[2024] NZHC 2736
•20 September 2024
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
ApplicantSONNY 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 does not comply with all the requirements set out in r 19.4A of the High Court Rules 2016.
[7]I addressed these matters at some length in Wallace v Green.2 I concluded:
(a)While unusual, a Beddoe order can be sought by interlocutory application.3
(b)Even where a Beddoe order is sought by interlocutory application, the requirements of r 19.4A apply.4
(c)If (as here) some of the requirements of r 19.4A have not been complied with, the consequences of non-compliance are governed by r 1.5.5
[8] This essentially accords with what Mr Napier and Ms Taefi each submitted. For the reasons set out in their submissions, I consider that the objectives of the requirements in r 19.4A have been met by other means. The non-compliance should therefore not result in the application being regarded as irregular or ineffective. I therefore consider the application on its merits.
[9] The application seeks Beddoe orders for two proceedings. One is an originating application that was commenced by the interested parties (Originating Application). This is the proceeding that is for hearing next week. In my judgment of 6 September 2024, I found that bringing the Originating Application was in the interest of the Trust. For that reason I granted a Beddoe order to the applicant for the defence of that proceeding, but limited to $25,000. For the same reason I consider I should grant a Beddoe order to the interested parties for the costs of bringing the proceeding. The order will be limited to $25,000 (which is all the interested parties seek). Further, in accordance with a memorandum from counsel for the interested
2 Wallace v Green [2022] NZHC 512.
3 At [45].
4 At [46]–[49].
5 At [50].
parties dated 19 September 2024, it will be limited to reasonable costs incurred from the date of the Beddoe application (28 August 2024) onwards.
[10] The other proceeding is a judicial review that was commenced by the applicant (Judicial Review Proceeding). In my earlier judgment I adjourned the applicant’s application for a Beddoe order in respect of that proceeding. The interested parties ask that I do the same for their application. I agree that course is appropriate.
[11] Finally, the interested parties seek an order that they be indemnified from the assets of the Trust for their reasonable costs in bringing the Beddoe application. I made such an order with respect to the applicant’s Beddoe application. I agree the same order is appropriate here.
Result
[12] I order that it is proper for the interested parties to bring, and continue to bring, the Originating Application at the Trust’s cost and expense to the extent such costs and expenses are reasonably incurred from 28 August 2024, up to an amount of $25,000.
[13] I adjourn the interested parties’ application in respect of the Judicial Review Proceeding until the first Duty Judge list after 10 working days after judgment is delivered on the Originating Application.
[14] I order that the interested parties are entitled to be indemnified from the assets of the Trust for their reasonable costs of bringing the Beddoe application.
Campbell J
5