Shergill v Purewal & Anor

A libel action should be stayed where determining the pleaded defences would require the court to adjudicate on religious doctrine or the legitimacy of a religious leader. A court must examine the issues raised by the pleadings as a whole, including the meanings in which the defendant seeks to justify the words. Doctrinal issues cannot be artificially separated from factual issues where they are fundamental to the defence. The action should proceed only if the non-doctrinal issues can be adapted so that a fair trial remains possible without deciding matters falling within the court’s proper abstention.

The claimant brought a libel action concerning three articles published in the Panjab Times. The articles concerned disputes within the Sikh community about the status of Baba Jeet, his alleged succession to sainthood, and control of three UK Gurduwaras. The defendants relied principally on justification and honest opinion, pleading that the claimant’s conduct had contributed to tension and possible violence and that his support for Baba Jeet was unjustified.

The defendants applied for a stay on the ground that a fair trial would require the court to determine religious and doctrinal questions. The claimant argued that the case could be confined to factual issues concerning his conduct at the Gurduwaras. The central issue was whether the doctrinal questions could be separated or adapted sufficiently to permit a fair trial.

1. The application was granted. The action was stayed in relation to all three articles.
2. The court would not determine questions of religious doctrine or the legitimacy of a religious leader. The principle reflected the approach in R v The Chief Rabbi Ex parte Wachmann [1992] 1 WLR 1036, Sulaiman v Juffali, and Blake v Associated Newspapers [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB).
3. In a libel action, a defendant may seek to justify words in any meaning which they are reasonably capable of bearing. The court therefore had to consider the defendants’ pleaded case, not merely the meanings advanced by the claimant.
4. The defendants’ case depended on showing that the claimant’s assertions about Baba Jeet’s status, succession and control of the Gurduwaras were unjustified. Those matters were fundamental to the pleaded justification because the defendants said that the claimant’s conduct had created tension.
5. It would be artificial and unfair to separate the alleged factual conduct from the religious dispute. A fair trial of the first two articles would also require determination of the same doctrinal issues raised by the third article.
6. The non-doctrinal issues could not be adapted so as to avoid the insuperable obstacle created by questions lying at the heart of the case. The action was therefore stayed in its entirety.