Young Men's Christian Association of Christchurch (Inc) Charitable Trust
[2020] NZHC 2027
•10 August 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CIV-2018-409-000715
[2020] NZHC 2027
IN THE MATTER of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 AND
IN THE MATTER
of an application by The Young Men’s Christian Association of Christchurch (Inc) Charitable Trust for an order varying the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust
THE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTCHURCH (INC) CHARITABLE TRUST
Applicant
Hearing: 10 August 2020 Appearances:
M L Rhodes for Applicant
Attendance of Attorney-General (through D L Harris) excused
Judgment:
10 August 2020
JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J
This judgment was delivered by me on 10 August 2020 at 10.06 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
RE THE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTCHURCH (INC) CHARITABLE TRUST [2020] NZHC 2027 [10 August 2020]
Introduction
[1] John Hall — later Sir John Hall KCMG — arrived at Lyttelton in 1852 and became one of Canterbury’s most substantial sheep farmers. He was also one of the leading political figures of his time. He served in the New Zealand Parliament for some 20 years, some three years of them as Premier.
[2] Sir John was to become, particularly through charitable bequests in his will, a remarkable philanthropist.
[3] This proceeding concerns the object of one of his bequests, a will trust called the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust (the Trust).
[4] The provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 (the Act) apply to the Trust as it is a charitable trust.
[5] By this application, approval of a scheme (the Scheme) under the Act is sought. The Scheme would involve the transfer of the assets of the Trust to the applicant and the Court’s order dissolving the Trust.
The Trust
[6]Sir John Hall died on 25 June 1907.
[7] By a codicil to his last will and testament dated 10 May 1907 Sir John directed his executors to set aside £10,000 to be held on the terms of the Trust.
[8]By the codicil:
(a)a Board of Trustees of nine persons, including the Anglican and Roman Catholic Bishops and Ministers of both the Presbyterian and Wesleyan faiths, was to manage the Trust; and
(b)the objects of the Trust were:
to provide instruction and amusement for the working boys of the City of Christchurch and surrounding Boroughs and
Districts within an area of six miles as the crow flies from the General Post Office in Cathedral Square Christchurch such boys being between the ages of twelve and eighteen for their physical mental and spiritual improvement.
The YMCA
[9] The applicant in this proceeding is The Young Men’s Christian Association of Christchurch (Inc) Charitable Trust (YMCA Trust). The YMCA Trust was incorporated under the Act on 19 February 2003. It is related to the “YMCA” which was first established in New Zealand in 1855 (original YMCA), and to a Christchurch branch subsequently established in 1862 (Christchurch YMCA).
[10] Evidence in support of the application has been provided by Josie Ogden Schroeder, the Chief Executive of the Christchurch YMCA. She referred to the original YMCA as having been founded to enable young people to thrive and take their place in the community with the purpose of building strong children, strong families and strong communities. The (varied) Deed of the YMCA Trust identifies its charitable purpose in these terms:
1.1.3.1.The search for a deeper understanding of Christian values and their application to daily life; and
1.1.3.2.The recognition of the sanctity of each individual and the encouragement of his or her entire development in body, mind and spirit; and
1.1.3.3.The encouragement of a community spirit in which people care for and support each other and work together in searching for justice, freedom and peace; …
as well as acknowledging principles on which the broader YMCA organisation operates.
[11] A close relationship developed between the YMCA Trust and the Trust, understandably given Sir John Hall’s decision to have the Trust Board include the two bishops and two ministers.
[12] In 1909, the Christchurch YMCA sought and obtained from the High Court an order approving a transaction whereby the YMCA Trust granted a mortgage over land as security for £5,000 to be advanced by the Trust for a (renewable) term of five years.
[13] Newspaper records exhibited by Ms Ogden Schroeder indicate that the governance of the Trust was informally merged with that of the YMCA Trust in October 1920. An article appearing in the Press newspaper of 21 October 1920, under the heading “Boys’ Gordon Hall to be conducted by Y.M.C.A.”, states:
On the first of the present month the Boys’ Gordon Hall practically became the junior department of the Christchurch Y.M.C.A. The name is not to be altered, however, but the Boys’ Gordon Hall will be conducted as part and parcel of the activities of the Y.M.C.A.
…
The change in the conduct of the Boys’ Gordon Hall was decided upon as the result of conferences between the executors of the late Sir John Hall (under whose will the Boys’ Gordon Hall was established), and the directors of the
Y.M.C.A. In conformity with the agreement arrived at, the Y.M.C.A. took charge of the Boys’ Gordon Hall work on October 1st, and will, from time to time, submit reports to the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust detailing the progress made.
[14] Ms Ogden Schroeder, with her affidavit, provided a statement of facts. She explained that it appeared that, because the administration of the Trust was effectively handed over to the YMCA Trust in October 1920, no succession process for trustees of the Trust was followed, with the result that the Trust was eventually left without any properly appointed trustees.
[15] Ms Ogden Schroeder explained that the administration of the Trust has since been carried out informally by a succession of members of the Board of the Christchurch YMCA by way of operating a signing authority over the Trust’s bank accounts and dealing with other Trust assets.
[16] For unknown reasons, and in a manner not explained in Ms Ogden Schroeder’s evidence (other than through production of a Certificate of Incorporation), the “Boys Gordon Hall Trust” (that is, without an apostrophe) was incorporated under the Act on 15 December 1977.
This application
[17] For the YMCA Trust, Mr Rhodes recognised that the Trust has been left (for many years) without formally appointed trustees. In discussion with the Bench, he
accepted that the evidence indicates that there has equally been a lack of informally appointed trustees for many years.
[18]The application has therefore been brought by the YMCA Trust.
[19] The application is brought expressly on the basis that it is impossible, impracticable or inexpedient to administer the Trust as contemplated by the codicil.
[20]The YMCA Board in particular:
(a)wishes to continue the objectives of the Trust to the extent it is practicable to do so;
(b)considers that the purposes will best be achieved as part of, and under the formal administration of, the YMCA Trust rather than through retaining the Trust as a separate entity;
(c)considers that transferring the modest cash assets ($50,546.46 as at 30 June 2020) to the YMCA represents the best practical outcome for the Trust; and
(d)proposes that the Trust’s funds are pooled with the charitable trust funds of the YMCA Trust, but with a view to the funds being administered by the YMCA Trust as a separate and distinct trust fund.
[21]The YMCA Trust expressly seeks orders:
(a)transferring the assets of the Trust to the YMCA Trust; and
(b)declaring the dissolution of the Trust.
Advertising
[22] In accordance with s 36 of the Act, the Scheme was advertised. No one has given notice of intention to oppose the Scheme as proposed.
Report of the Attorney-General
[23] In accordance with s 35 of the Act, the Scheme was submitted to the Attorney- General. I have received the report of the Attorney, submitted by the Deputy Solicitor- General.
[24] The Attorney expressed satisfaction with the proposed scheme as a proper one in terms of the requirements under pt 3 of the Act, but subject to one qualification. The Attorney’s qualification was this:
To achieve the scheme proposed, I consider it is first necessary for this Court to vary the objects of the Trust so that they are expressed to be the same as those of the YMCA, and then authorise the transfer of Trust funds to the YMCA. The Trust was a functional permanent endowment (being capital to be used for a specific purpose) and the disposal of the Trust property for another charitable purpose entails a change of purpose.
[25] In otherwise supporting the scheme, the Attorney noted the significant overlap in the respective objectives of the Trust and the YMCA Trust, particularly in relation to the physical, mental and spiritual improvement of the people involved. The Attorney observed that, assuming the objects of the Trust are to be varied, the outcome will accord as closely as is reasonably possible to the terms of the original trust, albeit extending the future application of the Trust funds to boys and girls to reflect contemporary practice.
[26] The Attorney further observed that once the YMCA Trust receives the funds as trustee, the Trust itself will be left as a shell trust. The YMCA Trust’s receipt of the Trust funds as trustee and the proposed management of the funds as a separate and distinct fund will serve to ensure that the outcome of the Scheme will not offend the “no termination” principles.
The fate of the Trust to date
[27] As noted (at [16] above), the “Boys Gordon Hall Trust” was incorporated under the Act in December 1977.
[28] That incorporation will, if the Scheme is approved, be left (as observed by the Attorney) as a shell, the YMCA Trust now assuming the trusteeship.
[29] This led the applicant to apply also for an order declaring the dissolution of the Trust. The Registrar of Incorporated Societies has power under s 26 of the Act to dissolve the Trust’s Board if it is no longer carrying on its operations, as will be the case.
The law – pt 3 of the Charitable Trusts Act
Disposal of trust property for other charitable purposes
[30] Part 3 of the Act provides for schemes for the disposition of property held on a charitable trust.
[31] Section 32(1) of the Act provides for the disposal of such trust property for charitable purposes other than those existing under a particular trust, through the submission and approval of a scheme. Section 32(1) provides:
32Property may be disposed of for other charitable purposes
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), in any case where any property or income is given or held upon trust, or is to be applied, for any charitable purpose, and it is impossible or impracticable or inexpedient to carry out that purpose, or the amount available is inadequate to carry out that purpose, or that purpose has been effected already, or that purpose is illegal or useless or uncertain, then (whether or not there is any general charitable intention) the property and income or any part or residue thereof or the proceeds of sale thereof shall be disposed of for some other charitable purpose, or a combination of such purposes, in the manner and subject to the provisions hereafter contained in this Part.
[32] Given the proposal for the assets of the Trust to be transferred to the YMCA (with the charitable purpose varied as the Court sees appropriate), the provisions of s 33 of the Act are also relevant, in that they provide for the mode of administering the Trust to be prescribed or varied by the Court:
33Extension of powers or alteration of mode of administration of trust
In any case where it is made to appear that any property or income is given or held upon trust, or is to be applied, for any charitable purpose, and the administration of the property or income or the carrying out of the trust could be facilitated by extending or varying the powers of the trustees or by prescribing or varying the mode of administering the trust, the powers of the trustees may be extended or varied, and
the mode of administering the trust may be prescribed or varied, in the manner and subject to the provisions hereafter contained in this Part:
provided that nothing in this section shall restrict the powers that are or may be conferred on the court or the trustees by or under the Trustee Act 1956 or any other Act or by law.
[33] A number of matters are well established in relation to the exercise of the statutory jurisdiction:
(a)Where a case falls within s 32(1) of the Act, the case should generally be dealt with in accordance with pt 3 of the Act and not on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.1 Whether the case must be dealt with under pt 3 has been left open by a Court of Appeal.2
(b)The Court is not hampered by any such limitation as is involved in the doctrine of cy-près, but any scheme should seek to substitute beneficiaries or purposes resembling as closely as possible in the changed circumstances those which originally commended themselves to the person who established the trust.3
(c)The substituted arrangements must be charitable as that term is understood in law.4
(d)The Court will dispose of the property in such a way as will best serve the interests of those intended to be beneficiaries and the public.5
“Inexpedience”
[34] The concept of “inexpedience” under s 32(1) of the Act has been explained by the Court of Appeal in Re McElroy Trust as connoting the situation of “the original
1 Re Palmerston North Halls Trust Board [1976] 2 NZLR 161 (SC) at 166; and Re Twigger [1989] 3 NZLR 329 (HC) at 340.
2 Alacoque v Roache [1998] 2 NZLR 250 (CA) at 256. See also Andrew Butler (ed) Equity and Trusts in New Zealand (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2009) at [11.16.3(3)].
3 Public Trustee v Attorney-General [1923] NZLR 433 (SC) at 442; and Re Twigger, above n 1, at 341–342.
4 Re Tennant [1996] 2 NZLR 633 (HC) at 636.
5 Re Tennant, above n 4, at 636.
charitable purpose or purposes having become unsuitable, inadvisable or inapt”.6 The expression “expediency” has been recognised in a related context (under s 51 Trustee Act 1957) as a test which involves “a lower threshold than necessity and imports considerations of suitability, practicality and efficiency”.7 This observation has equal application to the test under s 32(1) of the Act.
[35] Under s 32(1) of the Act, there is in addition to the tests of “impossibility, impracticability or inexpediency” the test of whether the amount available is inadequate to carry out the purpose of the trust.
Modern inclusivity
[36] The breadth of the jurisdiction of the Court to alter objects consistently with the general intention of the settlor, and where necessary to take account of modern approaches, is illustrated in Re W R Williams Memorial for the Missions to Seamen Trust Board Inc.8 In that case, the purpose of the trust was to engage in ministering to the material comfort and moral and spiritual wellbeing of seamen in the Port of Wellington and to conduct religious services in the trust’s premises for the benefit of seamen upon Christian, Protestant and Evangelical lines or methods. The application sought approval of a scheme which would delete the requirement for “Christian, Protestant, Evangelical lines”. The application was made on the basis amongst others that “modern seafarers now have a diverse range of beliefs”.9 The Scheme was approved.
[37] Such authority recognises, consistently with the Attorney’s observations in this case, that such matters as a contemporary approach to inclusivity may be accommodated on a pt 3 application if the s 32 tests are met.
Charitable trusts do not fail
[38] There is the issue as to what may appropriately be ordered or resolved in relation to the existing trusteeship. It is necessary to draw a distinction between the
6 Re McElroy Trust [2003] 2 NZLR 289 (CA) at [14].
7 Low v Rothschild Trust (Schweiz) AG [2017] NZHC 25, [2017] NZAR 288 at [38].
8 Re W R Williams Memorial for the Missions to Seamen Trust Board Inc [2018] NZHC 867.
9 At [6].
trusts on which property is held and the constitution of the trustees (whether through an unincorporated or incorporated board of trustees or otherwise).
[39] As submitted by the Attorney, the (“no termination”) rule is that a property, once committed to charity, remains forever committed. It was observed by Lord Simonds in the House of Lords in National Anti-Vivisection Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners that “[a] charity once established does not die, though its nature may be changed”.10 Put another way, a charitable trust, once established, can never fail.11
[40] The solution, where original purposes become outdated or unachievable lies in an application under pt 3 of the Act.
[41] In Society of Vincent de Paul v Wanganui Ozanam Villa Trust, the Society applied for the rescission of orders liquidating a charitable trust (the Wanganui Ozanam Villa Trust) and directing the distribution of net proceeds to three named charities.12 Allan J rescinded the orders made on the basis that the proceeding had miscarried, through a failure in the Trust to draw to the Court’s attention the entitlement of the Society to be heard on the application of pt 3 of the Act and in particular as to whether the trustees’ proposal was in accordance with the cy-près principle.
[42] The decision serves to emphasise that it is generally incumbent upon the trustees of a charitable trust, when it has become “impractical or inexpedient” to carry out the original charitable purpose of the trust, to pursue through pt 3 of the Act a scheme by which the assets of the trust come to be dealt with in accordance with the cy-près principle.13
Amalgamation of charitable trusts
[43] There has been an informal amalgamation of the Trust and the YMCA Trust for many years (albeit with the recognition of the Trust as akin to a sub-trust). In Re
10 National Anti-Vivisection Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1947] 2 All ER 217 (HL) at 238.
11 Also at 238.
12 Society of St Vincent de Paul v Wanganui Ozanam Villa Trust [2007] NZAR 77 (HC).
13 At [47].
Tuhoe Charitable Trust Board, Woolford J had to consider a scheme for what in effect involved the amalgamation of three charitable trusts associated with Ngāi Tūhoe.14 His Honour referred to orders made in earlier cases which involved the amalgamation of separate existing trusts.15 His Honour then observed:
[39] These cases show that the Court has jurisdiction under s 32 to make an order amalgamating multiple charitable trusts into a single trust, provided that the statutory conditions for variation of trust are met, that is, the applicants must still show that it has become inexpedient, impracticable, or impossible to carry out the original purposes of the individual trusts.
[44] In one of the cases referred to by Woolford J, Re New Zealand Federation of Graduate Women, Clifford J similarly approved a scheme that amalgamated two separate trusts with a third.16 His Honour made the relevant orders as follows:
1.That the Scheme under Part III of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 submitted by the applicants be approved by the Court in terms of the following orders:
(a)That the Court approve the amalgamation of the second and third-named applicants with the first-named applicant, the New Zealand Federation of Graduate Women Charitable Trust (“the NZFGW Charitable Trust”) on the trusts, powers and obligations set out in the trust deed for the NZFGW Charitable Trust;
(b)That the NZFGW Charitable Trust succeed to all the property (meaning property of every kind, including any rights, interests and claims of every kind in relation to that property), choses in action, rights, interests, powers, privileges, trusts, contracts, engagements and authorities of the second and third-named applicants;
(c)That any bequest or gift to any of the second and third-named applicants take effect as a bequest or gift to the NZFGW Charitable Trust;
(d)That the NZFGW Charitable Trust succeed to all the debts, liabilities and obligations of the second and third-named applicants;
(e)That any proceeding taken by or against any of the second and third-named applicants may be continued by or against the NZFGW Charitable Trust.
14 Re Tuhoe Charitable Trust Board [2012] NZHC 1952.
15 At [33], citing Hawke’s Bay Children’s Home v Birthright (Napier) Inc HC Wellington CIV-2004- 441-458, 30 August 2004; Re Sisters of Mercy Trust HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-2290, 12 December 2005; and Re New Zealand Federation of Graduate Women HC Wellington CIV-2006- 485-2037, 7 November 2006.
16 Re New Zealand Federation of Graduate Women, above n 15.
2.That, following the making of these orders, the second-named applicant take the necessary steps to be removed from the Register of Incorporated Societies and the trustee of the third-named applicant be released from the trusts, powers and obligations as set out in the Deed of Trust of the third-named applicant.
Court’s power to modify Scheme
[45] Upon an application for approval of any scheme under pt 3 (or pt 4) of the Act, the Court may under s 53(c) of the Act make an order approving the scheme with or without modification, as it thinks fit.
Identity of applicant
[46] This is an application for approval of the Scheme under pt 3 of the Act. Section 34 of the Act provides that it is the trustees of the property or income in question who may prepare a scheme in accordance with pt 3.
[47] This application is being brought not by current trustees of the Trust (there appear to be none) but instead by the Board of the YMCA Trust.
[48] I do not find that to be a bar to consideration of the Scheme. The affairs of this Trust had to be regularised and it was necessary that a scheme be prepared. To the extent that the Act does not provide specifically for this situation, the Scheme might be said to not strictly fall within pt 3 and therefore not be subject to the doubts that have been expressed as to the scope of any remaining inherent jurisdiction. The Court must retain its inherent jurisdiction to entertain a scheme put forward by a non-trustee in the sort of situation which has arisen here.
Discussion — modification
[49] There exist marked similarities between the charitable purposes of the Trust, as defined in cl 7 of the Sir John Hall’s codicil (above at ([8(b)]), and the purposes of the YMCA Trust.
[50] Given those objects, and the focus upon this region, it is difficult to envisage that there could be a nearer modern-day equivalent to the Trust than the YMCA Trust. The fact that no other person has responded to the advertising of the Scheme to oppose
or otherwise reinforces the likelihood that the YMCA Trust has the closest relationship in terms of purposes.
[51] Originally the most significant difference between the two trusts was the Trust’s specific focus on young men. But in that regard the Attorney’s point is well made — the focus of the YMCA Trust on both boys and girls may be viewed as reflecting contemporary (inclusive) practice, in much the same way as the variation in the W R Williams Memorial case delivered by accommodating the modern, more diverse range of beliefs.17
[52] While the £10,000 bequest made to the Trust was of a very significant amount in its time, the current level of assets of the Trust ($50,546.46) is comparatively modest. The Court may take judicial notice of the fact that the assets, unless administered in conjunction with more substantial assets, are unlikely to be capable of economic administration, particularly if the Trust were to be administered under a board of trustees of nine persons, as originally required.
[53] There are a number of ways of describing what has happened in this case. First, it is impractical or inexpedient to carry out the purpose of the Trust as set out in the codicil. That has come about for historical reasons through the way the Trust and the YMCA Trust began to interact a century ago. Decisions taken and inaction in the long period since have led the present-day Board of the YMCA Trust to pursue, through the proposed Scheme, a way of properly carrying out the trust created by the codicil. The present situation demands in the interests of “suitability, practicality and efficiency” a rearrangement of the general nature proposed in the Scheme.
[54] Furthermore, this is a case in which the amount available may appropriately be considered (in terms of s 32(1) of the Act) inadequate to carry out Sir John Hall’s original purpose. The practicable way of having the Trust’s funds administered economically in the interests of those who are intended to benefit is to have administrative costs and overheads legally absorbed (as they have been for many years informally) through the YMCA Trust.
17 Re the W R Williams Memorial for the Missions to Seamen Trust Board Inc, above n 8.
[55] In these circumstances, under s 32(1) it is appropriate that the property of the Trust and any accrued income be disposed of by transfer to the YMCA Trust.
[56] At the same time as an order of transfer takes effect, there should appropriately be an order, as proposed by the Attorney, whereby the objects of the Trust are varied so that they are expressed to be the same as those of the YMCA Trust. The most significant variation thereby effected is that all young persons, not just young men, will fall within the objects of the Trust. The circumstances which now exist are significantly changed from those which existed at the time Sir John Hall established the Trust. The benefits of organisations or support for young people on a basis that does not exclude people based on gender are now commonly recognised.
Discussion — amalgamation
[57] It is obvious that, upon an order being made to vary the Trust’s purposes to accord with those of the YMCA Trust, there needs to be a new governance arrangement. The amalgamation of the Trust with the YMCA Trust, with the latter assuming all the Trust’s property and succeeding to its obligations, as in the Federation of Graduate Women case (above at [44]), is the practicable solution.18 Although that differs in form from the seemingly simple “transfer of assets” order identified in the Scheme as proposed, it is in substance the solution sought. Section 53(c) of the Act empowers the Court to approve the Scheme with or without modification. I will approve the Scheme with that additional modification.
Discussion — dissolution
[58] It is appropriate that the dissolution of the Trust’s Board be attended to, in accordance with the procedure under s 26 of the Act. An order will be made of the nature made in the Federation of Graduate Women case requiring the YMCA Trust to refer the matter of the Trust’s dissolution to the Registrar of Incorporated Societies.
18 Re New Zealand Federation of Graduate Women, above n 15.
Costs
[59] The Solicitor-General seeks $750 as the costs on the Attorney’s report. Those have been agreed to by the applicant and will be ordered.
[60] Appropriately the applicant did not seek an order for its own costs and disbursements and none will be ordered.
[61] In relation to the dissolution of the Trust Board, the applicant again did not seek its costs or disbursements and none will be ordered in that regard.
Orders
[62]I order:
(a)The objects of the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust are varied by deleting those set out in cl 7 of the Codicil of Sir John Hall dated 10 May 1907 and replacing them with the following objects, namely:
(i)to provide for the physical, mental and spiritual improvement of young persons in Christchurch; and
(ii)to recognise the sanctity of each individual and their entire development in body, mind and spirit; and
(iii)to encourage a community spirit in which people care for and support each other and work together in searching for justice, freedom and peace.
(b)The Court approves the amalgamation of the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust with the applicant, The Young Men’s Christian Association of Christchurch (Inc) Charitable Trust (the YMCA Trust), on the trusts, powers and obligations of the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust as varied at [62(a)] above.
(c)The YMCA Trust shall succeed to all the property (meaning property of every kind, including any rights, interests, and claims of every kind in relation to that property), things in action, rights, interests, powers, privileges, trusts, contracts, engagements and authorities of the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust.
(d)Any bequest or gift to the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust shall take effect as a bequest to the YMCA Trust.
(e)The YMCA Trust shall succeed to all the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust.
(f)Any proceeding taken by or against the Boys’ Gordon Hall Trust may be continued by or against the YMCA Trust.
(g)Following the making of these orders, the YMCA Trust shall refer this judgment and the relevant background to the Registrar of Incorporated Societies for the purpose of a declaration under s 26 Charitable Trusts Act 1957 upon the basis that the Board as registered on 15 December 1977 will no longer be carrying on its operations.
(h)The YMCA Trust is to pay to the Solicitor-General $750 on account of the costs of the Attorney-General’s report.
(i)There is otherwise no order as to costs and disbursements.
Osborne J
Solicitors:
Cavell Leitch, Christchurch
Copy to: Crown Law, Wellington (D L Harris)
0