Seeking justice

Tuesday 23 September 2014

An important decision of the Supreme Court has opened the door to enable access to justice for religious institutions involved in disputes. The case of Shergill and Others –v- Khaira and others concerned the trusteeship and governance of two Sikh temples (Gurdwaras). Specifically, the power to appoint and remove Trustees of those Gurdwaras and the associated powers of governance conferred by the Constitution of the Charity.

The Defendants did not accept that the spiritual leader of their Sikh sect was the acknowledged successor of the previous spiritual leader who had died. The Defendants also disputed the meaning and validity of a deed granting the Third Holy Saint the power to dismiss and appoint trustees.

A dispute arose over the validity of the Third Holy Saint’s appointment and his subsequent directions leading to a dispute over the control of the Charity’s assets. The Third Holy Saint was joined by eight other claimants in seeking from the Court declarations and injunctions in order to regain their control and trusteeship over the Gurdwaras from the Defendants.

In 2011, the Birmingham High Court dismissed an application by the Defendants to strike out the proceedings on the grounds of non justiciability (the Court’s ability to adjudicate a dispute, namely the Court’s ability to adjudicate on issues of religious doctrine, belief and practice as the Courts in the UK are secular and do not concern themselves with such issues). That decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal who handed down a Judgment  to the effect that the Appeal would be allowed and the action be permanently stayed as the proceedings raised non justiciable issues of religious belief, doctrine or practice.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court to consider whether the Court of Appeal were correct in deciding that the action should be stayed.

The Supreme Court held that the dispute was justiciable and capable of being determined by the Court. The Court found that disputes regarding the ownership, possession and control of property held on trust for religious purposes by trustees can be determined even where that requires determination of religious issues provided that those issues are capable of objective assessment and necessary to decide the disputed legal rights.

The Court confirmed that the English courts cannot determine disputes about the truth or otherwise of religious beliefs or the validity of rights and rituals where these are not matters of law capable of proof. However, issues concerning civil rights or interests or reviewable questions of public law are capable of being objectively ascertained.

In this case, the issue was the interpretation of a trust for religious purposes, which falls within the Court’s jurisdiction and can therefore be determined. The matter will now be remitted back to the High Court for a decision on the substantive claim.

Blacks were previously instructed by the Claimants in this matter at the Court of Appeal stage and successfully secured permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.