Update on litigation

Several members of the Progressive Lodge have asked me for an update on where things are sitting with the litigation brought against the Progressive Lodge of New Zealand by the Grand Lodge of New Zealand and RAOB Trust.

Right now, it is likely that we will end up before the court in the next couple of months, following our application for a summary judgment to have the case thrown out. We received a response to our counter-claim at the end of last year that indicates the RAOB Trust intends to pursue the claim. We did not want this to end up in court, we would rather both PLNZ and GLNZ agree mutually to withdraw our claims and settle our differences without the cost of a court process.

Before the end of last year, our lawyers wrote to the lawyers for the RAOB Trust and Grand Lodge. We offered to negotiate with GLNZ to end this pointless and expensive litigation. We have had no response to this generous offer.

We reiterate that we will be seeking costs for all the money we've been forced to waste on this litigation - the point of Buffs is to raise money for philanthropy, not lawyers. The RAOB Trust has conceded that it has no claim on the real estate now held by the Buffs Charitable Trust. They are only claiming property that either the minor lodges have already handed back, or that rightfully belongs to those lodges anyway.

The response to our counter-claim has also introduced material from the “All Sections Consultative Committee (ASCC)” in the UK, which was hardly relevant to their claim for the property of the minor lodges in question. There have been some comments made online that the litigation is challenging the legitimacy of the Progressive Lodge of New Zealand. This was not part of the original claim, it has only now been introduced since we applied for a summary judgment, and in the context of why the litigation has been launched so many years after PLNZ was formed.

The ASCC correspondence we have provided demonstrates that the ASCC really was not interested in the question of the legitimacy or otherwise of PLNZ, and said so in writing. The ASCC then said in another letter that “no countenance should be given” to the PLNZ, which is hardly an explicit statement that the PLNZ lacks legitimacy. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the court now makes of this.