Whangaparaoa Community Centre Project Inc v Whangaparaoa Community Trust

[2016] NZHC 570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001530 [2016] NZHC 570

BETWEEN

WHANGAPARAOA COMMUNITY

CENTRE PROJECT INC First Applicant

DESMOND HAMILTON ADAMS Second Applicant

NORMA JOAN BUCKLAND Third Applicant

GLENYS TERESE FERGUSON Fourth Applicant

AND

THE WHANGAPARAOA COMMUNITY TRUST

First Respondent

THE WHANGAPARAOA RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

Second Respondent

Hearing:	4 April 2016
Appearances:	K Nicholson for Applicants J McBride for Respondents
Judgment:	5 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 5 April 2016 at 3.00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………..

WHANGAPARAOA COMMUNITY CENTRE PROJECT INC & ORS v THE WHANGAPARAOA COMMUNITY TRUST & OR [2016] NZHC 570 [5 April 2016]

[1]      This is a judicial review proceeding set down for hearing on 18 April 2016. It concerns the Whangaparaoa Community Hall, which is owned by the Whangaparaoa Community Trust.  The hall was previously owned by the Whangaparaoa Residents and Ratepayers Association (WRRA).    The applicants are, respectively, an incorporated society incorporated in 2013 with the object of restoring the Whangaparaoa Community Hall to public ownership, the acting president and two members  of  the  society.     The  applicants  seek  to  impugn  the  2004  decision purportedly made by the WRRA to transfer the hall to the Trust and  the 2005 instrument that resulted in its transfer.

[2]      In  an  application  dated  21  March  2016  and  filed  on  1 April  2016  the

applicants applied for tailored discovery of the trust’s financial affairs from January

2005 to 31 March 2016. The respondents oppose the application.

[3]      It is clear that there is considerable anxiety among the applicants and concern over the matter in which the Trust’s affairs have been managed.  On the other hand, as Mr McBride, for the respondents, points out, none of these matters can be relevant to the validity of the impugned decision and acts.  The judicial review application turns  on  the  events  of 2004  and  2005.    Discovery of  the  nature  sought  is  not

necessary and not appropriate. The application is declined.

P Courtney J