Toailoa v Eliu - [2024] NZHC 1621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-1747

[2024] NZHC 1621

UNDER 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 (SISDAC) charitable trust board and the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Trust (SISDA Property Trust) charitable trust board

BETWEEN

SIAOSI DAVID SOOTAGA TOAILOA

First Applicant

Continued:…/2

Hearing: 18 June 2024

Appearances:

B O’Callahan and R Warren for Applicants

J D McBride and R Woods for First to Fourth Respondents

Judgment:

19 June 2024

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

[Application for leave to appeal and application for stay pending appeal of orders appointing interim manager]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19/06/2024 at 3pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Zhang Law, Auckland
B O’Callahan, Auckland R Warren, Auckland
CM & Associates, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

TOAILOA & ORS v ELI & ORS [2024] NZHC 1621 [19 June 2024]

Continued…

AND

FEU SEUMAALII

Second Applicant

PENIATA SAUNIA
Third Applicant

MATAUINA ELIU, SALETAULUA CHARLES FAAMANATU MAKA AND TONGA SEINI FATA

as trustees of the SISDA PROPERTY TRUST First Respondents

SUNRISE GLOBAL HOMES LIMITED

Second Respondent

WILLIE PAPU
Third Respondent

WILLIE PAPU JUNIOR
Fourth Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Fifth Respondent

Introduction

[1] On 10 June 2024, I issued a decision appointing an interim manager to administer the affairs of two closely related charitable trusts, namely the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Trust (SIDSA Property Trust) and the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Church (SISDAC), both of which are incorporated as Charitable Trust Boards (the Trusts).

[2] The first to fourth respondents (the Respondents) seek leave to appeal that judgment and they apply for a stay of execution of the orders appointing the interim manager and associated orders pending appeal.

[3] I heard initial argument on 12 June 2024 and further argument yesterday 18 June 2024.

[4] There is some urgency as the orders have implications for the Trusts’ funding arrangements.

[5]For reasons that will be set out separately, I make the following orders:

(a)Granting leave to appeal against the decision dated 10 June 2024 ([2024] NZHC 1509).

(b)Staying the execution of the interlocutory orders made in the decision dated 10 June 2024 appointing Andrew McKay as manager of SISDAC and the SISDA Property Trust pending determination of any appeal filed in the Court of Appeal upon the following conditions:

(i)a notice of appeal is to be filed within five working days; and

(ii)the appeal is to be prosecuted with all diligence including application to have the appeal admitted to the fast-track process in the Court of Appeal.

[6] The applicants sought additional conditions if the applications were granted. First, that a fund of $120,000 be paid into Court upon which the applicants could draw to meet the legal costs associated with the appeal and with an associated appeal from a decision of…

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 1621
Case: [2024] NZHC 1621
Decision Date: 19 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Siasi David Sootaga Toailoa, Feu Seumaalii, and Peniata Saunia sought leave to appeal and a stay pending appeal of orders appointing an interim manager to administer the affairs of the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Trust and the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Church. The respondents, Matauina Eliu, Saletaula Charles Faamanatu Maka, Tonga Seini Fata, Sunrise Global Homes Limited, Willie Papu, Willie Papu Junior, and the Attorney General, sought to appeal the decision and to have the orders stayed pending appeal. The applicants also sought additional conditions, including a fund of $120,000 to cover the legal costs of the appeal.

The court had to determine whether to grant leave to appeal and, if so, whether to stay the execution of the orders appointing the interim manager pending appeal. The court also had to consider the applicants' request for additional conditions, including funding for the appeal.

The court granted leave to appeal and stayed the execution of the interlocutory orders appointing the interim manager, subject to conditions. The court declined to grant the applicants' request for additional conditions, including funding for the appeal, as it believed the issue of funding should be decided by the judge dealing with the application for a stay of execution of the costs orders made in a previous judgment. The court also declined to limit the stay to a period of three months, stating that bringing the matter back for reconsideration would incur further costs which must be borne by the Trusts.

The court reserved the issue of costs in respect of this matter.

Orders