Sione v Onehunga Samoan Assembly of God Trust Board

[2013] NZHC 2840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2013-404-4289 [2013] NZHC 2840

BETWEEN  LEAUMA SIONE AND OTHERS Applicants

ANDTHE ONEHUNGA SAMOAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD TRUST BOARD Respondent

Hearing:                   29 October 2013

Counsel:                  T Bowler for Applicants

R O Parmenter for Respondent

Judgment:                29 October 2013

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

Neilsons, Onehunga Graham & Co, Auckland Counsel:

R O Parmenter, Auckland

SIONE AND OTHERS v THE ONEHUNGA SAMOAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD TRUST BOARD [2013] NZHC

2840 [29 October 2013]

[1]      Leauma Sione and others were members of the Glen Innes Samoan Assembly of God.  They apply for a caveat to be sustained over land owned by the Onehunga Samoan Assembly of God Trust Board. The claim is based on a constructive trust.

[2]      In broad terms, the claim arises out of events which saw, first a sum of

$20,000 and later a sum of $162,000 being advanced on behalf of the Glen Innes Assembly to the Onehunga Assembly.  There are disputes as to whether these sums were advanced to obtain some form of proprietary interest, or as gifts.

[3]      There are also additional sums reflecting both a gift to the former Pastor of the Onehunga Assembly, Mr Moananu, of $20,000 and $50,000 from tithings.  These are not linked specifically to the proprietary claim but, in light of the order I am about to make, I record expressly that any issues involving those sums are expressly left open for resolution between the parties, whether through litigation or otherwise.

[4]      So far as the caveat proceeding is concerned, the parties have reached an agreement whereby the sum of $194,177.91 will be paid to Mr Sione on behalf of his interests and the caveat over the Trust Board’s property will lapse.  That will be done by dismissing the application for an order that the caveat not lapse, on the condition that  the  caveat  remains  in  place  until  Daniel  Overton  Goulding,  solicitors, Onehunga, provide a written undertaking to the Court that they will pay the sum of

$194,177.91 to the solicitors for Mr Sione’s interests within three working days of the notice of lapse appearing on the identifier for the property.  An order is made by consent to that effect.

[5]      The parties have agreed to meet to discuss shared use of the church.  That is in agreement in principle.   It is hoped that that meeting will take place within the next seven days or so.  Obviously, the Court cannot compel the parties to enter into such discussions but it would be appropriate for them to do so, given the nature of the issues that require resolution.

[6]      In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs on the application for

an order that the caveat not lapse.

P R Heath J