Toailoa v Eliu - [2024] NZHC 2217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-1748 [2024] NZHC 2217

UNDER THE Trusts Act 2019, the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, and Part 18 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF

the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Church charitable trust board and the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Trust charitable trust board

BETWEEN

SIAOSI DAVID SOOTAGA TOAILOA

First Applicant

Cont:/

Hearing: on the papers

Counsel:

B O’Callahan and R J Warren for applicants (respondents to application for directions)

J D McBride and S Cameron for first, second, third and fourth respondents

D L Harris and A A A Ghandour for fifth respondent M K Mahuika for sixth respondent

Judgment:

8 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(application for directions re stay order)

This judgment was issued by me on 8 August 2024 at 2pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Zhang Law, Auckland
CM & Associates, Auckland
Crown Law Office, Wellington

TOAILOA v ELIU & ORS [2024] NZHC 2217 [8 August 2024]

AND
FEU SEUMAALII

Second Applicant

AND

PENIATA SAUNIA

Third Applicant

AND

MATAUAINA ELIU, SALETAULUA

CHARLES FAAMANATU MAKA AND TONGA SEINI FATA, AS TRUSTEES OF THE SISDA PROPERTY TRUST

First Respondents

AND

SUNRISE GLOBAL HOMES LIMITED

Second Respondent

AND

WILLIE PAPU

Third Respondent

AND

WILLIE JUNIOR PAPU

Fourth Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Fifth Respondent

AND

SAMOAN INDEPENDENT SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH

Sixth Respondent

[1] By result judgment dated 28 March 2024,1 with reasons delivered on 31 May 2024,2 I made orders in this proceeding (the Costs Proceeding):

(a)declaring it reasonable and appropriate for the applicants (the Toailoa applicants) to commence proceedings (the Main Proceeding) seeking to remove the trustees of trusts I referred to as the Property Trust and the Church, and otherwise regularising aspects of the trusts’ constitutions and administration;

(b)declaring it reasonable and appropriate for the Toailoa applicants to seek interim orders in the Main Proceeding appointing an interim receiver or trustee of the Property Trust and the Church; and

(c)directing that the Toailoa applicants be reimbursed such of their reasonable legal costs in doing so as may be approved by the Registrar of this Court, from the assets of the Church and, if necessary, the Property Trust.

[2] The surviving first respondents, trustees of the Property Trust (Mr Maka and Ms Fata), sought a stay of my orders, pending determination of appeals to the Court of Appeal against my orders and orders of Wilkinson-Smith J made in the Main Proceeding. On 24 July 2024, I granted the stay, but made an order that the Property Trust must pay $100,000 to the Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, in respect of the Toailoa applicants’ legal costs relating to the appeals.3

[3] By application dated 31 July 2024, Mr Maka and Ms Fata seek directions under s 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 “as to how they should comply with” my order to pay
$100,000 to the Court.…

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 Toailoa v Eliu

Details

AGLC: Toailoa v Eliu [2024] NZHC 2217
Case: [2024] NZHC 2217
Decision Date: 8 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Toailoa v Eliu, the applicants, Siasios David Sootaga Toailoa, Feu Seumalii, and Peniata Saunia, sought directions regarding the payment of $100,000 to the Registrar of the High Court. The funds were required to be paid by the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Trust (Property Trust) as a result of a prior court order. The trustees of the Property Trust, Matauaina Eliu and Tonga Seini Fata, sought directions to confirm they could use funds from a GST reserve account to make the payment without breaching their trustee obligations. The court considered whether to grant the trustees' application for directions under section 133 of the Trusts Act 2019.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trustees could lawfully use the funds from the GST reserve account to meet the court's order and if the application for directions was necessary given the existing court order. The court examined whether the trustees' opinion on the matter was reasonable and if there was any conflict of interest.

The court held that the trustees were already protected by section 134 of the Trusts Act, which provides immunity for trustees acting under any direction of the court, including the previous order for payment. The court found the application moot as the trustees were already entitled to the protections sought. The court dismissed the application and made no order as to costs.

Orders