TUIʼIMALO MATAMU v VAʼAIMALU SIʼITIA [2018] NZSC 14

TUIʼIMALO MATAMU v VAʼAIMALU SIʼITIA [2018] NZSC 14

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants' arguments amounted to a re‑run of factual challenges already considered by the lower courts, raised no issue of general public importance and did not demonstrate any risk of miscarriage of justice.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZSC 14
Parties
Applicant: TUIʼIMALO MATAMU; Applicant: TALAOALIʼI NASERI; Applicant: MALIELEGAOI AUMUA; Applicant: SAENI PITA; Applicant: TOFA TOFIA TOFA; Respondent: VAʼAIMALU SIʼITIA; Respondent: MARY McEWING; Respondent: ALISA LASI; Respondent: SALAPO RAPITI TUIA
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Factual Findings, Abandonment of Membership, Costs
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Property Law Religious Organisations Leave to Appeal Judicial Review Factual Findings Abandonment of Membership +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

TUIʼIMALO MATAMU

Applicant

TALAOALIʼI NASERI

Applicant

MALIELEGAOI AUMUA

Applicant

SAENI PITA

Applicant

TOFA TOFIA TOFA

Applicant

VAʼAIMALU SIʼITIA

Respondent

MARY McEWING

Respondent

ALISA LASI

Respondent

SALAPO RAPITI TUIA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to challenge parish council resolutions
  2. 2 Whether the applicants merely seek re‑evaluation of factual findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the issues raise questions of general or public importance

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants' arguments amounted to a re‑run of factual challenges already considered by the lower courts, raised no issue of general public importance and did not demonstrate any risk of miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • Costs of $2,500 awarded to the respondents