"OY" V THE ASSESSORS & ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-005165

"OY" V THE ASSESSORS & ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-005165

The Court granted an interim stay because there is a serious and strongly arguable question that the Complaints Hearing Committee will be improperly constituted in breach of rule 6.1 (failure to appoint a required representative of the relevant ethnic group), the potential prejudice to the plaintiff from proceeding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-83771858_99a8_4997_a2d1_71d3ffa57750.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: "OY"; First Defendant: The Assessors (appointed by the Assembly Executive Secretary of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand); Second Defendant: Complaints Hearing Committee (as appointed by the Convenor and Deputy Convenor of the Council of Assembly and the Assembly Executive Secretary of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand); Third Defendant: Judicial Commission (as appointed by the Council of the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand); Fourth Defendant: Presbytery of Auckland (formed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (challenge to Church Disciplinary Process) / Interlocutory Hearing (application for Interim Stay)
Outcome
Interim stay granted
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Interim Injunction/stay, Committee Composition and Statutory/constitutional Interpretation, Natural Justice, Disciplinary Proceedings for Sexual Misconduct
Administrative Law Ecclesiastical/church Law Procedural Law Criminal Law (contextual) Abuse of Process Judicial Review Interim Injunction/stay Committee Composition and Statutory/constitutional Interpretation +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

"OY"

Plaintiff

The Assessors (appointed by the Assembly Executive Secretary of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand)

First Defendant

Complaints Hearing Committee (as appointed by the Convenor and Deputy Convenor of the Council of Assembly and the Assembly Executive Secretary of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand)

Second Defendant

Judicial Commission (as appointed by the Council of the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand)

Third Defendant

Presbytery of Auckland (formed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand)

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (challenge to Church Disciplinary Process) / Interlocutory Hearing (application for Interim Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the church judicial/disciplinary decision
  2. 2 Whether Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee prevents the Complaints Hearing Committee hearing charges after a criminal acquittal
  3. 3 Whether the charges before the Complaints Hearing Committee replicate criminal charges so as to be an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted an interim stay because there is a serious and strongly arguable question that the Complaints Hearing Committee will be improperly constituted in breach of rule 6.1 (failure to appoint a required representative of the relevant ethnic group), the potential prejudice to the plaintiff from proceeding is severe, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice favour temporary relief despite unexplained delay; additionally Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee was distinguishable because Appendix E-9 expressly permits Church proceedings after criminal acquittal, so the abuse of process argument was weak.

Court Disposition

Interim stay granted

Orders

  • Interim order staying the hearing of the disciplinary charges brought by the Presbytery of Auckland against the plaintiff pending the determination of these proceedings or earlier order of the Court
  • Suppression order prohibiting publication of name(s) or particulars identifying the plaintiff and complainant and that the court file not be searched without leave of the Court