Better

Better Public Media Trust (the Trust) appeals against a High Court decision declining its registration as a charitable trust.

The key issue on appeal as noted at [2] is:

As noted at [5]:

“…

We are required to assess the facts and apply the relevant law to those facts. In this case, that involves us determining whether or not the Trust’s advocacy role is beneficial to the community and whether or not it qualifies as a charity by comparing its purposes with those of recognised charities. This is not a case in which the High Court’s factual findings were reached after seeing and hearing witnesses. In addition, we have had the benefit of further evidence from that presented in the High Court. The evidence (two affidavits of Myles Thomas, the Chairman of the Trust) has the purpose of updating this Court on the Trust’s recent activities. We have decided to allow that evidence because it is relevant and cogent. Allowing that evidence is consistent with the interests of justice. We are therefore in a stronger position than the High Court Judge to fully assess the evidence.”

By way of background:

The fundamental issue for consideration was whether the Trust’s advocacy functions eclipsed its charitable purposes.

The Court of Appeal’s analysis, set out as follows, is instructive:

Fundamentally, as noted at [86] to [90]:

The Court of Appeal was guided by the Supreme Court decision in Greenpeace stating at [99] to [106] :

The decision in Better Public Media warrants close consideration.

References

• Better Public Media Trust v AG [2023] NZCA 553
• Charities Act 2005, s 5(1)
• Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 350
• Re Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZSC 105, [2015] 1 NZLR 169
• Attorney-General v Family First New Zealand [2022] NZSC 80, [2022] 1 NZLR 175
• Latimer v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2004] UKPC 13, [2004] 3 NZLR 157