RE THE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTCHURCH (INC) CHARITABLE TRUST [2020] NZHC 2027

RE THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTCHURCH (INC) CHARITABLE TRUST[2020] NZHC 2027 [10 August 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2018-409-000715[2020] NZHC 2027IN THE MATTER of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957ANDIN THE MATTER of an application by The Young Men'sChristian Association of Christchurch (Inc)Charitable Trust for an order varying theBoys' Gordon Hall TrustTHE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIANASSOCIATION OF CHRISTCHURCH(INC) CHARITABLE TRUSTApplicantHearing: 10 August 2020Appearances: M L Rhodes for ApplicantAttendance of Attorney-General (through D L Harris) excusedJudgment: 10 August 2020JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 10 August 2020 at 10.06 am pursuant to Rule 11.5of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Introduction[1] John Hall — later Sir John Hall KCMG — arrived at Lyttelton in 1852 andbecame one of Canterbury's most substantial sheep farmers. He was also one of theleading political figures of his time. He served in the New Zealand Parliament forsome 20 years, some three years of them as Premier.[2] Sir John was to become, particularly through charitable bequests in his will, aremarkable philanthropist.[3] This proceeding concerns the object of one of his bequests, a will trust calledthe Boys' Gordon Hall Trust (the Trust).[4] The provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 (the Act) apply to the Trustas 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 andthe 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 directedhis 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 RomanCatholic Bishops and Ministers of both the Presbyterian and Wesleyanfaiths, was to manage the Trust; and(b) the objects of the Trust were:to provide instruction and amusement for the working boys ofthe City of Christchurch and surrounding Boroughs andDistricts within an area of six miles as the crow flies from theGeneral Post Office in Cathedral Square Christchurch suchboys being between the ages of twelve and eighteen for theirphysical mental and spiritual improvement.The YMCA[9] The applicant in this proceeding is The Young Men's Christian Association ofChristchurch (Inc) Charitable Trust (YMCA Trust). The YMCA Trust wasincorporated under the Act on 19 February 2003. It is related to the "YMCA" whichwas first established in New Zealand in 1855 (original YMCA), and to a Christchurchbranch subsequently established in 1862 (Christchurch YMCA).[10] Evidence in support of the application has been provided by Josie OgdenSchroeder, the Chief Executive of the Christchurch YMCA. She referred to theoriginal YMCA as having been founded to enable young people to thrive and take theirplace in the community with the purpose of building strong children, strong familiesand strong communities. The (varied) Deed of the YMCA Trust identifies itscharitable purpose in these terms:1.1.3.1. The search for a deeper understanding of Christian values andtheir application to daily life; and1.1.3.2. The recognition of the sanctity of each individual and theencouragement of his or her entire development in body, mindand spirit; and1.1.3.3. The encouragement of a community spirit in which peoplecare for and support each other and work together in searchingfor justice, freedom and peace; as well as acknowledging principles on which the broader YMCA organisationoperates.[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 twobishops and two ministers.[12] In 1909, the Christchurch YMCA sought and obtained from the High Court anorder approving a transaction whereby the YMCA Trust granted a mortgage over landas 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 thegovernance of the Trust was informally merged with that of the YMCA Trust inOctober 1920. An article appearing in the Press newspaper of 21 October 1920, underthe 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 becamethe junior department of the Christchurch Y.M.C.A. The name is not to bealtered, however, but the Boys' Gordon Hall will be conducted as part andparcel of the activities of the Y.M.C.A.The change in the conduct of the Boys' Gordon Hall was decided upon as theresult of conferences between the executors of the late Sir John Hall (underwhose will the Boys' Gordon Hall was established), and the directors of theY.M.C.A. In conformity with the agreement arrived at, the Y.M.C.A. tookcharge of the Boys' Gordon Hall work on October 1st, and will, from time totime, submit reports to the Boys' Gordon Hall Trust detailing the progressmade.[14] Ms Ogden Schroeder, with her affidavit, provided a statement of facts. Sheexplained that it appeared that, because the administration of the Trust was effectivelyhanded over to the YMCA Trust in October 1920, no succession process for trusteesof the Trust was followed, with the result that the Trust was eventually left withoutany properly appointed trustees.[15] Ms Ogden Schroeder explained that the administration of the Trust has sincebeen carried out informally by a succession of members of the Board of theChristchurch YMCA by way of operating a signing authority over the Trust's bankaccounts and dealing with other Trust assets.[16] For unknown reasons, and in a manner not explained in Ms Ogden Schroeder'sevidence (other than through production of a Certificate of Incorporation), the "BoysGordon Hall Trust" (that is, without an apostrophe) was incorporated under the Act on15 December 1977.This application[17] For the YMCA Trust, Mr Rhodes recognised that the Trust has been left (formany years) without formally appointed trustees. In discussion with the Bench, heaccepted that the evidence indicates that there has equally been a lack of informallyappointed 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 ispracticable to do so;(b) considers that the purposes will best be achieved as part of, and underthe formal administration of, the YMCA Trust rather than throughretaining the Trust as a separate entity;(c) considers that transferring the modest cash assets ($50,546.46 as at 30June 2020) to the YMCA represents the best practical outcome for theTrust; and(d) proposes that the Trust's funds are pooled with the charitable trust fundsof the YMCA Trust, but with a view to the funds being administered bythe 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 hasgiven 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 onein 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 Courtto vary the objects of the Trust so that they are expressed to be the same asthose of the YMCA, and then authorise the transfer of Trust funds to theYMCA. The Trust was a functional permanent endowment (being capital tobe used for a specific purpose) and the disposal of the Trust property foranother charitable purpose entails a change of purpose.[25] In otherwise supporting the scheme, the Attorney noted the significant overlapin the respective objectives of the Trust and the YMCA Trust, particularly in relationto the physical, mental and spiritual improvement of the people involved. TheAttorney observed that, assuming the objects of the Trust are to be varied, the outcomewill accord as closely as is reasonably possible to the terms of the original trust, albeitextending the future application of the Trust funds to boys and girls to reflectcontemporary practice.[26] The Attorney further observed that once the YMCA Trust receives the funds astrustee, the Trust itself will be left as a shell trust. The YMCA Trust's receipt of theTrust funds as trustee and the proposed management of the funds as a separate anddistinct 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 underthe Act in December 1977.[28] That incorporation will, if the Scheme is approved, be left (as observed by theAttorney) 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 theTrust. The Registrar of Incorporated Societies has power under s 26 of the Act todissolve the Trust's Board if it is no longer carrying on its operations, as will be thecase.The law – pt 3 of the Charitable Trusts ActDisposal of trust property for other charitable purposes[30] Part 3 of the Act provides for schemes for the disposition of property held ona charitable trust.[31] Section 32(1) of the Act provides for the disposal of such trust property forcharitable purposes other than those existing under a particular trust, through thesubmission and approval of a scheme. Section 32(1) provides:32 Property may be disposed of for other charitable purposes(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), in any case where anyproperty or income is given or held upon trust, or is to be applied, forany charitable purpose, and it is impossible or impracticable orinexpedient to carry out that purpose, or the amount available isinadequate to carry out that purpose, or that purpose has been effectedalready, or that purpose is illegal or useless or uncertain, then (whetheror not there is any general charitable intention) the property andincome or any part or residue thereof or the proceeds of sale thereofshall be disposed of for some other charitable purpose, or acombination of such purposes, in the manner and subject to theprovisions 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 ofs 33 of the Act are also relevant, in that they provide for the mode of administering theTrust to be prescribed or varied by the Court:33 Extension of powers or alteration of mode of administration oftrustIn any case where it is made to appear that any property or income isgiven or held upon trust, or is to be applied, for any charitable purpose,and the administration of the property or income or the carrying outof the trust could be facilitated by extending or varying the powers ofthe trustees or by prescribing or varying the mode of administeringthe trust, the powers of the trustees may be extended or varied, andthe mode of administering the trust may be prescribed or varied, in themanner and subject to the provisions hereafter contained in this Part:provided that nothing in this section shall restrict the powers that areor may be conferred on the court or the trustees by or under the TrusteeAct 1956 or any other Act or by law.[33] A number of matters are well established in relation to the exercise of thestatutory jurisdiction:(a) Where a case falls within s 32(1) of the Act, the case should generallybe dealt with in accordance with pt 3 of the Act and not on the Court'sinherent jurisdiction.1 Whether the case must be dealt with under pt 3has been left open by a Court of Appeal.2(b) The Court is not hampered by any such limitation as is involved in thedoctrine of cy-près, but any scheme should seek to substitutebeneficiaries or purposes resembling as closely as possible in thechanged circumstances those which originally commended themselvesto the person who established the trust.3(c) The substituted arrangements must be charitable as that term isunderstood in law.4(d) The Court will dispose of the property in such a way as will best servethe 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 bythe Court of Appeal in Re McElroy Trust as connoting the situation of "the original1 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 andTrusts 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, at341–342.4 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 Theexpression "expediency" has been recognised in a related context (under s 51 TrusteeAct 1957) as a test which involves "a lower threshold than necessity and importsconsiderations of suitability, practicality and efficiency".7 This observation has equalapplication 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 isinadequate to carry out the purpose of the trust.Modern inclusivity[36] The breadth of the jurisdiction of the Court to alter objects consistently withthe general intention of the settlor, and where necessary to take account of modernapproaches, is illustrated in Re W R Williams Memorial for the Missions to SeamenTrust Board Inc.8 In that case, the purpose of the trust was to engage in ministering tothe material comfort and moral and spiritual wellbeing of seamen in the Port ofWellington and to conduct religious services in the trust's premises for the benefit ofseamen upon Christian, Protestant and Evangelical lines or methods. The applicationsought approval of a scheme which would delete the requirement for "Christian,Protestant, Evangelical lines". The application was made on the basis amongst othersthat "modern seafarers now have a diverse range of beliefs".9 The Scheme wasapproved.[37] Such authority recognises, consistently with the Attorney's observations in thiscase, that such matters as a contemporary approach to inclusivity may beaccommodated 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 inrelation to the existing trusteeship. It is necessary to draw a distinction between the6 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 throughan 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 LordSimonds in the House of Lords in National Anti-Vivisection Society v Inland RevenueCommissioners that "[a] charity once established does not die, though its nature maybe 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 inan application under pt 3 of the Act.[41] In Society of Vincent de Paul v Wanganui Ozanam Villa Trust, the Societyapplied for the rescission of orders liquidating a charitable trust (the WanganuiOzanam Villa Trust) and directing the distribution of net proceeds to three namedcharities.12 Allan J rescinded the orders made on the basis that the proceeding hadmiscarried, through a failure in the Trust to draw to the Court's attention theentitlement of the Society to be heard on the application of pt 3 of the Act and inparticular as to whether the trustees' proposal was in accordance with the cy-prèsprinciple.[42] The decision serves to emphasise that it is generally incumbent upon thetrustees of a charitable trust, when it has become "impractical or inexpedient" to carryout the original charitable purpose of the trust, to pursue through pt 3 of the Act ascheme by which the assets of the trust come to be dealt with in accordance with thecy-près principle.13Amalgamation of charitable trusts[43] There has been an informal amalgamation of the Trust and the YMCA Trustfor many years (albeit with the recognition of the Trust as akin to a sub-trust). In Re10 National Anti-Vivisection Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1947] 2 All ER 217 (HL) at238.11 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 effectinvolved the amalgamation of three charitable trusts associated with Ngāi Tūhoe.14His Honour referred to orders made in earlier cases which involved the amalgamationof separate existing trusts.15 His Honour then observed:[39] These cases show that the Court has jurisdiction under s 32 to makean order amalgamating multiple charitable trusts into a single trust, providedthat the statutory conditions for variation of trust are met, that is, the applicantsmust still show that it has become inexpedient, impracticable, or impossibleto carry out the original purposes of the individual trusts.[44] In one of the cases referred to by Woolford J, Re New Zealand Federation ofGraduate Women, Clifford J similarly approved a scheme that amalgamated twoseparate 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 1957submitted by the applicants be approved by the Court in terms of thefollowing orders:(a) That the Court approve the amalgamation of the second andthird-named applicants with the first-named applicant, theNew Zealand Federation of Graduate Women CharitableTrust ("the NZFGW Charitable Trust") on the trusts, powersand obligations set out in the trust deed for the NZFGWCharitable 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 andthird-named applicants;(c) That any bequest or gift to any of the second and third-namedapplicants take effect as a bequest or gift to the NZFGWCharitable Trust;(d) That the NZFGW Charitable Trust succeed to all the debts,liabilities and obligations of the second and third-namedapplicants;(e) That any proceeding taken by or against any of the second andthird-named applicants may be continued by or against theNZFGW 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, 12December 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-namedapplicant take the necessary steps to be removed from the Register ofIncorporated Societies and the trustee of the third-named applicant bereleased from the trusts, powers and obligations as set out in the Deedof 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 orwithout modification, as it thinks fit.Identity of applicant[46] This is an application for approval of the Scheme under pt 3 of the Act. Section34 of the Act provides that it is the trustees of the property or income in question whomay prepare a scheme in accordance with pt 3.[47] This application is being brought not by current trustees of the Trust (thereappear 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 thisTrust had to be regularised and it was necessary that a scheme be prepared. To theextent that the Act does not provide specifically for this situation, the Scheme mightbe said to not strictly fall within pt 3 and therefore not be subject to the doubts thathave been expressed as to the scope of any remaining inherent jurisdiction. The Courtmust retain its inherent jurisdiction to entertain a scheme put forward by a non-trusteein 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 ofthe YMCA Trust.[50] Given those objects, and the focus upon this region, it is difficult to envisagethat 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 opposeor otherwise reinforces the likelihood that the YMCA Trust has the closest relationshipin terms of purposes.[51] Originally the most significant difference between the two trusts was theTrust's specific focus on young men. But in that regard the Attorney's point is wellmade — the focus of the YMCA Trust on both boys and girls may be viewed asreflecting contemporary (inclusive) practice, in much the same way as the variation inthe W R Williams Memorial case delivered by accommodating the modern, morediverse range of beliefs.17[52] While the £10,000 bequest made to the Trust was of a very significant amountin its time, the current level of assets of the Trust ($50,546.46) is comparativelymodest. The Court may take judicial notice of the fact that the assets, unlessadministered in conjunction with more substantial assets, are unlikely to be capable ofeconomic administration, particularly if the Trust were to be administered under aboard 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 thecodicil. That has come about for historical reasons through the way the Trust and theYMCA Trust began to interact a century ago. Decisions taken and inaction in the longperiod since have led the present-day Board of the YMCA Trust to pursue, through theproposed Scheme, a way of properly carrying out the trust created by the codicil. Thepresent situation demands in the interests of "suitability, practicality and efficiency" arearrangement of the general nature proposed in the Scheme.[54] Furthermore, this is a case in which the amount available may appropriately beconsidered (in terms of s 32(1) of the Act) inadequate to carry out Sir John Hall'soriginal purpose. The practicable way of having the Trust's funds administeredeconomically in the interests of those who are intended to benefit is to haveadministrative costs and overheads legally absorbed (as they have been for many yearsinformally) 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 theTrust 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 appropriatelybe an order, as proposed by the Attorney, whereby the objects of the Trust are variedso that they are expressed to be the same as those of the YMCA Trust. The mostsignificant 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 aresignificantly changed from those which existed at the time Sir John Hall establishedthe Trust. The benefits of organisations or support for young people on a basis thatdoes 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 toaccord with those of the YMCA Trust, there needs to be a new governancearrangement. The amalgamation of the Trust with the YMCA Trust, with the latterassuming all the Trust's property and succeeding to its obligations, as in theFederation of Graduate Women case (above at [44]), is the practicable solution.18Although that differs in form from the seemingly simple "transfer of assets" orderidentified in the Scheme as proposed, it is in substance the solution sought. Section53(c) of the Act empowers the Court to approve the Scheme with or withoutmodification. 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, inaccordance with the procedure under s 26 of the Act. An order will be made of thenature made in the Federation of Graduate Women case requiring the YMCA Trust torefer 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. Thosehave been agreed to by the applicant and will be ordered.[60] Appropriately the applicant did not seek an order for its own costs anddisbursements and none will be ordered.[61] In relation to the dissolution of the Trust Board, the applicant again did notseek 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 thoseset out in cl 7 of the Codicil of Sir John Hall dated 10 May 1907 andreplacing them with the following objects, namely:(i) to provide for the physical, mental and spiritual improvement ofyoung persons in Christchurch; and(ii) to recognise the sanctity of each individual and their entiredevelopment in body, mind and spirit; and(iii) to encourage a community spirit in which people care for andsupport each other and work together in searching for justice,freedom and peace.(b) The Court approves the amalgamation of the Boys' Gordon Hall Trustwith the applicant, The Young Men's Christian Association ofChristchurch (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 propertyof every kind, including any rights, interests, and claims of every kindin 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 asa bequest to the YMCA Trust.(e) The YMCA Trust shall succeed to all the debts, liabilities andobligations of the Boys' Gordon Hall Trust.(f) Any proceeding taken by or against the Boys' Gordon Hall Trust maybe continued by or against the YMCA Trust.(g) Following the making of these orders, the YMCA Trust shall refer thisjudgment and the relevant background to the Registrar of IncorporatedSocieties for the purpose of a declaration under s 26 Charitable TrustsAct 1957 upon the basis that the Board as registered on 15 December1977 will no longer be carrying on its operations.(h) The YMCA Trust is to pay to the Solicitor-General $750 on account ofthe costs of the Attorney-General's report.(i) There is otherwise no order as to costs and disbursements.Osborne JSolicitors:Cavell Leitch, ChristchurchCopy to: Crown Law, Wellington (D L Harris)