IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE	
CIV-2020-418-12
[2020] NZHC 2638	

BETWEEN	JOHN READY
Plaintiff	
AND	THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
COMMUNITY TRUST commonly known as Gloriavale
First Defendant	
AND	FERVENT STEDFAST,
ENOCH UPRIGHT, SAMUEL VALOR and
JOSHUA DISCIPLE, as trustees of The Christian Church Community Trust, and COLIN NEIL SMITH,
DAVID MCMILLIAN and DAVID SMITH,
as independent trustees Second Defendants

continued…2	

Hearing:	(Determined on the papers)	
Counsel:	B P Henry and D J Gates for Plaintiff	
Judgment:	8 October 2020	

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 October 2020 at 12.00pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 8 October 2020

JOHN READY v THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST (Gloriavale) [2020] NZHC 2638 [8
October 2020]

AND	HOWARD TEMPLE, FERVENT STEDFAST, ENOCH UPRIGHT, SAMUEL VALOR, FAITHFUL PILGRIM, NOAH HOPEFUL and
STEPHEN STANDFAST, as trustees of the Gloriavale Members Trust
Third Defendants	
AND	CHRISTIAN PARTNERS NOMINEE LIMITED
Fourth Defendant	
AND	FAITHFUL PILGRIM, PETER JOHN RIGHTEOUS and STEPHEN STANDFAST
Fifth Defendants	

[1]	Counsel  for  the  plaintiff  applies  for  a  number  of  procedural  orders  as  a preliminary step to serving proceedings commenced in relation to The Christian Church Community Trust (the Trust), commonly known as Gloriavale (the Gloriavale Community).

[2]	In short, the proceeding seeks the replacement of the trustees, albeit there will need to be rulings made as to exactly who ultimately fulfils the role as trustee(s).

[3]	The plaintiff also seeks, pending determination of the proceeding, the Public Trust be appointed as interim trustee. That application will need to be dealt with on an on-notice basis, and the plaintiff does not suggest otherwise.

[4]	The plaintiff has identified those who he says fulfil the role of trustees of    the Trust. The plaintiff includes as trustees the independent trustees, members of the Glorivale Community known as “Shepherds”, the fourth defendant (Christian Partners Nominee Limited) and its directors and shareholders who are the fifth defendants.

[5]	The application for directions seeks all defendants be served in the ordinary way. That is appropriate and I direct accordingly. It may be the independent trustees,

at least one of whom is a solicitor Mr Colin Smith, may be able to agree to accept service on behalf of a number of defendants, but I leave that to the plaintiff to explore.

[6]	The Trust is registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 (the Act). Section 60 of the Act deals with proceedings relating to the enforcement of a charitable trust, including where directions are sought in respect of the administration of a Trust. Given the application seeks to appoint new trustees, I consider it is a proceeding that includes giving directions in respect of the administration of the Trust.

[7]	Accordingly, it is necessary, pursuant to s 60(2) of the Act, that the proceeding be served on the Attorney-General in his capacity as protector of charities and charitable trusts1 and I so direct. I note that ultimately, pursuant to s 60(3) of the Act, it will be for the court to determine who shall be heard in support of or in opposition to the application.

[8]	The plaintiff proposes to serve the Public Trust with the full court papers, given in the interim application it has sought to appoint the Public Trust as interim trustee. I direct accordingly.

Beneficiaries

[9]	Counsel have considered the position of beneficiaries, including those who may have been expelled from the properties occupied by the Trust but who may remain members of the Trust. Counsel also recognised there will be minor infant and unborn beneficiaries.

[10]	Counsel are not, at this point, proposing comprehensive directions be given in respect of representation. Counsel advise they will need to examine the members’ interests to see if there is a collective position and, if not, then representation will need to be revisited.

1	Re The Foundation for Anti-Aging Research and the Foundation for Reversal of Solid State Hypothermia [2016] NZHC 2328, (2016) 23 PRNZ 726 at [41]-[46].

[11]	Counsel propose the Court appoint Andrew Watkins together with Joshua Luke Saba Shaw and Cecil Mary Hannifen, lawyers of Wynn Williams, Christchurch, to initially represent all beneficiaries of the Trusts involved.

[12]	Counsel are known to the Court and as an interim position in respect of representation, I direct that Andrew Watkins, Joshua Luke Saba Shaw and Cecil Mary Hannifen are appointed to represent the interests of all potential beneficiary groups, including members presently occupying Gloriavale properties, members who have been expelled from the Glorivale properties but who may remain beneficiaries of the Trusts, infants, minors and unborn  beneficiaries  and  they  are  also  to  consider  the position of members who have voluntarily left the Trusts/Gloriavale Community.

[13]	Counsel appointed are to consider issues as to representation should they arise and in particular whether separate groups may require separate representation.

[14]	Counsel appointed are to file a report for my attention within 15 working days of this judgment (that is by Friday 30 October 2020) (taking into account the Public Holiday). If that timeframe proves optimistic then an extension may be sought by memorandum and may need to be revisited given the next paragraph.

[15]	For the avoidance of doubt, responsibility for the costs of counsel to be appointed is to be determined after the proceedings have been served on the first defendant. Counsel to be appointed have advised they are prepared to act if their fees are paid by the first defendant. I am not prepared to make that order without the first defendant being heard on that issue.   That proviso may mean counsel are not in        a position to accept appointment at this time. It follows, leave is reserved to apply for further directions in relation to representation and in respect of their fees.

Bringing the proceedings to the attention of the members of the Gloriavale Community

[16]	Counsel have, with the aid of former members of the Gloriavale Community, proposed a notice in terms (attached to the application for directions) which they consider would best bring the proceedings to the attention of the Gloriavale Community members.

[17]	In respect of service of the notice, which is approved by the Court, plaintiff’s counsel propose the notice be affixed by the plaintiff to the noticeboard of the Gloriavale Community.   In addition, copies of the notice are to  be delivered  by   the plaintiff  to  as  many  of  the  beneficiaries  who  are  resident  at  the   Gloriavale Community     as     possible     and      to      members      outside      of  the Gloriavale Community. It is also proposed that a copy of the notice be published in the Christchurch Press, Otago Daily Times, the Dominion Post and the New Zealand Herald. I approve publication of the notice in the specified newspapers.

[18]	I am concerned to ensure the provision of copies of the notice to members of the Gloriavale Community resident at Gloriavale properties is achieved in a peaceful manner, but also in a manner that gives notice to as many individuals as possible.

[19]	I am not prepared to direct that service of the proceedings on Mr Watkins shall be deemed sufficient service on the beneficiaries, regardless of whether the conditions proposed by the plaintiff are met. Those conditions include that the plaintiff affixes copies of the proceedings on the noticeboard at the Glorivale Community and takes the other steps specified in para 43(e) of the plaintiff’s memorandum.

[20]	Plaintiff’s counsel is to liaise with Mr Colin Smith, the independent solicitor trustee, as to the process of giving notice to members of the Gloriavale Community. The affixing of the notice on the noticeboard and the delivery of the notice to beneficiaries resident at the Gloriavale Community seems appropriate, but I am concerned that if those steps are taken by the plaintiff that either he will not be able to gain access to the property or there is a risk of a breach of the peace.

[21]	I direct the plaintiff is to give a copy of the notice to all beneficiaries he is aware of outside of the Gloriavale Community.

[22]	It follows that leave needs to be reserved for further directions in respect of service.

[23]	Mr Smith is requested to facilitate the distribution of notices to those resident in the Gloriavale Community, both by obtaining agreement (if possible) for the

proposed notice to remain on the noticeboard for (say) five working days and that copies be provided to all adult residents at Gloriavale properties. A copy of the notice is to be provided to Mr Smith.

[24]	It is probably sufficient for me to note that the Court would expect the trustees to ensure the beneficiaries are aware of the proceeding and the beneficiaries can then communicate with counsel appointed if they want to.

[25]	One final issue arises and that is an application for an order directing that affidavit no 2 of Virginia Courage, which identifies victims of events described in her affidavit no 1, not be served until further direction of the Court and until issues of suppression of the identities of those named in affidavit no 2 is considered. Counsel seek to suppress the names of those who are said to be victims of inappropriate sexual conduct at the Gloriavale Community, as it is said their identity is not relevant to the proceeding which alleges a culture that warrants removal of those trustees responsible. The application sought is that affidavit no 2 not be served with the initial papers. It is anticipated that once counsel is engaged by the parties, how the contents of affidavit no 2 is to be managed can be addressed by counsel and/or determined by the Court.  I am prepared to make that direction, but expressly on an interim basis. That I am prepared to do so should not be taken as indicating one way or the other what final orders may be made in respect of affidavit no 2.

[26]	I direct that affidavit no 2 of Virginia Courage not be searched without further order of the Court.

[27]	A number of procedural directions remain to be worked through. Leave is reserved to all parties to request a telephone conference at short notice to address any of the issues arising.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Shanahans, Auckland
Copy to counsel: B Henry and D Gates, Barristers, Auckland