Home / Blog /

Judge unmoved by Anglican Bishop’s contentions

In reading this post, please keep its age in mind.

I am sometimes critical that there is no follow up to a news story, so here’s a follow up to one of mine.

Both the bank and the Anglican Development Fund (ADF) sued The Bishop-in-Council (BIC) – formally, the current Bishop, Ian Palmer – for the $14.1 million left over after the ADF successfully recovered $11.3 million from the members of its Board (there’s another good story). Here’s BIC’s contentions, as summarised by the judge:

It denies the existence of the Diocese as an institution capable of incurring obligations which it formally and solemnly undertook. It denies the authority of its former Bishop and titular and spiritual head to have incurred obligations on its behalf which he formally and solemnly undertook. It denies that obligations formally and solemnly undertaken are legally binding. It denies the existence of formal documents of obligation where there is clear and cogent evidence of their existence. It denies that ordinances passed to give protection to lenders including Diocesan lenders in the event of borrowers’ default are effective to give any such protection. It denies that enabling legislation passed it give it control over church trust property gives it such control. It denies that its present Bishop would exercise powers and authority vested in him to discharge obligations formally and solemnly undertaking by his predecessor, even if her could do so. It denies the existence of any church trust property available to be used to discharge obligations it may be found to owe.

Given the number of times ‘formally and solemnly’ occurs you will not be surprised that the court rejected all these contentions [section 2.4.1 in this Almanac].  Property will have to be sold.