Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Motu v Woodroffe [2025] WSSC 41 (30 May 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Motu & Ors v Woodroffe [2025] WSSC 41 (30 May 2025)

CP67/24

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

FALEAFAGA ROGER MOTU, TA’ATITI DEBBIE FUIMAONO, LILLYAN MOTU MUAVAE, CHRISTINE MOTU, ASI SUSANA MOTU, all of Auckland, New Zealand.

Plaintiffs

AND:

LEULUA’IALII OLINDA WOODROFFE, of Auckland, New Zealand

Defendant

Counsel: Mr S Wulf for the Plaintiffs
Mr A Su’a for the Defendant

Decision: 30 May 2025

DECISION OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA
(SECURITY FOR COSTS)

Background

1. The proceedings before the Court by which security for cost is sought is a claim or application seeking to remove the defendant as administratrix of their late mother’s estate.
2. The plaintiffs and the defendant are siblings who grew up in Samoa but now reside in New Zealand.
3. The plaintiffs’ claim that their late mother who passed intestate on 25 October 1990 was registered owner of freehold land at Faatoia described as Lot 858 Plan 4921 which forms part of her estate. By consent, the defendant was appointed as administrator, and by transmission the land was vested in her as the administratrix of the estate.
4. The plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant for over 20 years has failed to settle the estate. Despite requests, she has refused or neglected to do so.

The Defendant - Estate Administration and Trust Claims

5. The defendant acknowledges that their late mother died intestate and that she was appointed administratrix of her estate, which was vested in her by transmission on 8 February 2002.
6. However, the defendant says that the Fa’atoia land was held by their late mother as the sole trustee of the Lolesi Family Trust, meant to benefit its descendants, including their late mother and her siblings. The defendant argues that, as the court appointed administrator of their mother’s estate, she has also become the sole trustee of the Lolesi Trust.
7. According to the defendant, the Faatoia land does not belong to their late mother’s estate but instead falls under the Lolesi Trust.

Defendant’s Request for Security for Costs

8. The defendant seeks $60,000.00 in security for costs against the plaintiffs, arguing:
   • (i) The Court has inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs.
   • (ii) The plaintiffs reside outside of Samoa.
   • (iii) The plaintiffs have no known assets in Samoa.
   • (iv) The defendant will incur significant costs in defending these proceedings making the requested amount fair given the circumstances.
   • (v) There is reason to believe the plaintiffs are unable to meet the defendant’s costs if the defendant is successful in defending the plaintiffs’ claim against her;
   • (vi) it is just and equitable in the circumstances for the Court to order security for costs.

Plaintiffs Opposition to Security for Costs

9. The plaintiffs oppose the security for costs application based on the following grounds:
   • (i) They, including the defendant, are beneficiaries of their late mother’s estate.
   • (ii) The estate includes 3,541 square meters of freehold land in Faatoia.^[1]
   • (iii) Justice requires that they not be denied access to the court due to security costs order.
10. The plaintiffs have also filed affidavits providing proof of their financial status including employment, bank statements and home ownership.

Security for Costs in Overseas Plaintiff Cases

11. Rule 30 requires overseas plaintiffs to provide security for costs. The Court has full discretion in deciding security applications when justice demands it.
12. The Court must balance two competing interests:
    • (i) Protecting defendants against the risk of a cost award that is of no value if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful in their claim.
    • (ii) Ensuring the plaintiffs are not unfairly denied access to the courts due to security for costs. (see Pune v Drake [2015] WSSC 33 (4 February 2015), at [30].)
13. The rationale behind security orders for overseas plaintiffs is to prevent unnecessary difficulty in enforcing cost judgments outside the jurisdiction. Courts also consider whether there is reason to believe plaintiffs might be unable to pay if they lose. (see Trinity Christian Centre of Santa Ana v Graceland Broadcasting Network (2008) WSSC 20, at [9]; Wilex Cocoa and Coconut Products Ltd v Electric Power Corporation [2009] WSSC 35 (23 April 2009), at [30].)

Discussion

14. The threshold jurisdictional requirement for ordering security is established by virtue of the plaintiffs residing in New Zealand. Once jurisdiction is established, the amount of security is determined at the court’s discretion.
15. The plaintiffs seek to remove the defendant as administrator of their late mother’s estate arguing that she has failed to settle it for over 20 years.
16. The defendant acknowledges that their late mother was the registered owner of the Faatoia land and that, by transmission the Faatoia land was vested in her as administrator. However, she claims the land is of a Lolesi Trust instead of their late mother’s - contrary to the understanding of the beneficiaries.
17. The defendant seeks $60,000 in security for costs, citing the complexity of the case, the need to review evidence spanning 40 years, and the necessity of calling witnesses from New Zealand and Australia.
18. The plaintiffs acknowledge that their only asset in Samoa is their beneficial interest in their late mother’s estate at Faatoi’a. They have provided affidavits proving their financial status, including employment and property ownership.
19. The plaintiffs claim has merit, while the defendant’s defence appears vague but is given the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, the court noted the defendant faces a difficult challenge in proving the existence of such a Trust, a point acknowledged in submissions by counsel.
20. The court is satisfied that the plaintiffs are financially stable and capable to meet any costs if their claim is unsuccessful. Additionally, both or all parties reside in New Zealand.
21. The court has broad discretion in security for costs, with relevant factors varying by case: Wilex Cocoa and Coconut Products v Electric Power Corporation; and Nikau Holdings ltd v Bank of New Zealand. The appropriate security must reflect the interests of justice and having regard to the circumstances of the case.
22. On balance the court considers NZ$5000 (or its equivalent in Samoan tala) to be a fair security order.

Result

23. The application seeking an order for security of costs is granted.
24. The said amount is to be paid in its equivalent in SAT$.
25. Parties to pay their own costs.
26. The matter to be placed on civil list to set hearing date upon payment of security.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

^[1] Registered as Lot 858 Plan 4921