Whangaparaoa Community Centre Project Inc v Whangaparaoa Community Trust [2016] NZHC 570 (5 April 2016)

Last Updated: 20 May 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001530 [2016] NZHC 570

BETWEEN	WHANGAPARAOA COMMUNITY CENTRE PROJECT INC First Applicant DESMOND HAMILTON ADAMS Second Applicant NORMA JOAN BUCKLAND Third Applicant GLENYS TERESE FERGUSON Fourth Applicant
AND	THE WHANGAPARAOA COMMUNITY TRUST First Respondent THE WHANGAPARAOA RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Second Respondent

Hearing:	4 April 2016
Appearances:	K Nicholson for Applicants J McBride for Respondents
Judgment:	5 April 2016

_{JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J}

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 5 April 2016 at 3.00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

_{Date.............................}

WHANGAPARAOA COMMUNITY CENTRE PROJECT INC & ORS v THE WHANGAPARAOA COMMUNITY TRUST & OR [2016] NZHC 570 [5 April 2016]

[1] This is a judicial review proceeding set down for hearing on 18 April 2016. It concerns the Whangaparaoa Community Hall, which is owned by the Whangaparaoa Community Trust. The hall was previously owned by the Whangaparaoa Residents and Ratepayers Association (WRRA). The applicants are, respectively, an incorporated society incorporated in 2013 with the object of restoring the Whangaparaoa Community Hall to public ownership, the acting president and two members of the society. The applicants seek to impugn the 2004 decision purportedly made by the WRRA to transfer the hall to the Trust and the 2005 instrument that resulted in its transfer.

[2] In an application dated 21 March 2016 and filed on 1 April 2016 the

applicants applied for tailored discovery of the trust’s financial affairs from January

2005 to 31 March 2016. The respondents oppose the application.

[3] It is clear that there is considerable anxiety among the applicants and concern over the matter in which the Trust’s affairs have been managed. On the other hand, as Mr McBride, for the respondents, points out, none of these matters can be relevant to the validity of the impugned decision and acts. The judicial review application turns on the events of 2004 and 2005. Discovery of the nature sought is not

_{necessary and not appropriate. The application is declined.}

P Courtney J