MATAU v FUSI [2017] NZHC 3210

MATAU v FUSI [2017] NZHC 3210

The application for leave to commence by originating application was declined because the dispute was not suitable for the originating application procedure: the factual issues were not narrow, there were multiple respondents and potential complexity, discovery and viva voce evidence were likely required, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 3210
Parties
Applicants (remaining 2004 Trustees): Malo Matau; Puleni Taomia; Makusa Vaelei; First Respondent: Reverend Teatu Fusi; Second Respondents: Reverend Teatu Fusi; Helina Telii; Alee Talava; Reverend Henele Tekavei; Mele Atanakala; Poni Faavae; Iusitini Faleasiu; Logofou Pepaa; Tauialefaio; Pitoki Filipo; Lagafao Alavata; Lavinia Teatu Fusi; Enosa Faiki; Third Respondent: Te Ekalesia Kelisiano Tuvalu; Fourth Respondent: Reverend Suamalie N T Iosefa; Fifth Respondents: Siliga Tala; Kaani Sekone; Kalanise Faauila; Armstrong Tekie; Saulo Haulagi; Pelekaitui A; Iusitini Faleasiu; Nouatatane; Tusialofa Poeala; Iapesavave; Talatea Boreham; Kitionatausi; Tuafafa Latasi; Sainimalalau; Fealuina Leuli; Vakaaliki Fagatoa
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Proceeding by Originating Application Under HCR 19.5 and Charitable Trusts Act 1957 / Hearing on Without‑notice Leave Application; Decision on Whether to Permit Originating Application (leave Application Determined)
Outcome
Application for leave to commence proceedings by originating application declined.
Legal Topics
Originating Application (hcr 19.5), Leave to Commence, Validity of Trustee Appointments, Alteration of Charitable Trust Rules, Incorporated Societies Filings, Urgency and Interlocutory Relief
Charity Law Trusts Civil Procedure Property Law (mortgage) Originating Application (hcr 19.5) Leave to Commence Validity of Trustee Appointments Alteration of Charitable Trust Rules +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malo Matau; Puleni Taomia; Makusa Vaelei

Applicants (remaining 2004 Trustees)

Reverend Teatu Fusi

First Respondent

Reverend Teatu Fusi; Helina Telii; Alee Talava; Reverend Henele Tekavei; Mele Atanakala; Poni Faavae; Iusitini Faleasiu; Logofou Pepaa; Tauialefaio; Pitoki Filipo; Lagafao Alavata; Lavinia Teatu Fusi; Enosa Faiki

Second Respondents

Te Ekalesia Kelisiano Tuvalu

Third Respondent

Reverend Suamalie N T Iosefa

Fourth Respondent

Siliga Tala; Kaani Sekone; Kalanise Faauila; Armstrong Tekie; Saulo Haulagi; Pelekaitui A; Iusitini Faleasiu; Nouatatane; Tusialofa Poeala; Iapesavave; Talatea Boreham; Kitionatausi; Tuafafa Latasi; Sainimalalau; Fealuina Leuli; Vakaaliki Fagatoa

Fifth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Commence Proceeding by Originating Application Under HCR 19.5 and Charitable Trusts Act 1957 / Hearing on Without‑notice Leave Application; Decision on Whether to Permit Originating Application (leave Application Determined)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceeding is suitable to be commenced by originating application under HCR 19.5
  2. 2 Whether the 2010 and 2015 purported trustee appointments and rule/name changes are valid
  3. 3 Whether discovery, viva voce evidence and pleadings are necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to commence by originating application was declined because the dispute was not suitable for the originating application procedure: the factual issues were not narrow, there were multiple respondents and potential complexity, discovery and viva voce evidence were likely required, and interpretation of the trust rules was contentious; accordingly the Court directed commencement by statement of claim.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to commence proceedings by originating application declined.

Orders

  • Application for leave under HCR 19.5 is declined.
  • Proceeding must be commenced by statement of claim as directed by the Court.