Charities: Greenpeace

Greenpeace has moved away from the pacifist underpinning of its original constitution by offering to change its rules in order to gain charitable status.  Tax advantages available to charities prohibit them from engaging in overt political activity.  The Court of Appeal directed that Internal Affairs reconsider Greenpeace’s application for charity registration.

Registration as a charity was initially refused on the basis that amongst its charitable aims Greenpeace stated as objects the promotion of “peace” and “disarmament”.  These objects can be considered political in nature.  Greenpeace subsequently offered to change its constitution to include the promotion of “peace, nuclear disarmament and the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.”

The Court ruled that this alteration significantly altered the nature of Greenpeace’s objects: from a non-violent “peace at all costs” political stance to a stance broadly accepted as being for the public benefit of the community as whole.   New Zealand treaty obligations support both nuclear disarmament and prohibitions on the development, use or stockpiling of biological and chemical weapons.  Nuclear disarmament and a prohibition on weapons of mass destruction have broad public support as being beneficial to society generally.

But registration as a charity for Greenpeace is not a foregone conclusion.  The Court warned Greenpeace that it will have to convince Internal Affairs that it is not involved in direct political lobbying in pursuit of its aims or that it has not been involved in any illegal activity.  The fact that Greenpeace banners are sometimes seen at environmental protests when activists trespass on industrial sites raises doubts about the legality of some Greenpeace activities.

re Greenpeace – Court of Appeal (16.11.12)

12.036

Trust: Christchurch Buildings Trust v. Church Property Trustees

The trust owning earthquake-damaged Canterbury Cathedral must build a new cathedral on the same site using insurance money for the rebuild, the High Court has ruled.  Legal action by concerned citizens seeking to preserve the city’s historic buildings has blocked plans by the Anglican church to use insurance money to build a temporary “cardboard cathedral” offsite.

The Anglican diocese in Christchurch has been in turmoil since earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 severely damaged its iconic cathedral.   The building was insured with insurance recoveries of some $39 million expected.

One group, dismayed by the loss of so many of Christchurch’s historic buildings lobbied to have the cathedral repaired.  The diocesan hierarchy had other plans.  Matters reached a head when government-appointed Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) issued a “make safe” notice.  The diocese was given ten days to bring the cathedral down to a safe level; failing that CERA would move in and demolish the structure.  The diocese resolved to immediately demolish the cathedral to a safe height of several metres.  No firm decision was made on a rebuild, but indications were that the diocese regarded the insurance proceeds as part of general church funds to be used as it saw fit.

The High Court was told the cathedral site was established by a trust in 1851 as part of an overall plan by colonial settlement company, the Canterbury Association, to transplant part of England in the new colony.  This trust lives on now as Church Property Trustees.

Justice Chisholm said the diocese appeared to misunderstand the purpose of the Cathedral trust, which is to maintain a cathedral on its existing site.  The Trust is governed by the Trustee Act.  The Act specifies that any insurance money received must be used for the purposes of the trust only and can be used for the rebuilding or repair of trust property.

He ruled that the diocese could not proceed with any decision to use the insurance monies for a different purpose, adding that while the Cathedral Trust requires there to be a cathedral on the site, the building does not have to replicate the cathedral as it stood before the earthquakes.

Great Christchurch Buildings Trust v. Church Property Trustees – High Court (15.11.12)

12.038

Financial advisers: Financial Markets Authority v. Ross

Court appointed receivers can take control of a financial adviser’s business where the Financial Markets Authority fears loss of client funds.

The High Court in Wellington appointed receivers to companies run by financial adviser David Robert Gilmour Ross after investors complained to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) about his dysfunctional management.  His investment business has about 900 clients, claiming to hold investments totalling some $430 million.

The FMA said it had received complaints from nearly 30 clients who had not received payments due.  There were serious concerns about management of the business: a failure to make decisions, failures to implement client investment instructions and inadequate records.  All staff had resigned.

The court was told Mr Ross was unavailable.  Subsequent newspaper reports indicated that Mr Ross was in hospital, suffering a mental illness.

Preliminary investigations by the FMA indicated that investments were held in New Zealand, Australia, North America and the United Kingdom.  Records were incomplete.  Tax returns for the business were two years in arrears.

John Fisk and David Bridgman of PriceWaterhouse Coopers were appointed as receivers to take control of the business.

Financial Markets Authority v. Ross – High Court (6.11.12)

12.039