Otuo v Morley & Anor

Religious or spiritual relationships are not automatically incapable of creating binding contractual relations. The question depends on the particular circumstances, including the nature of any rules, obligations and alleged agreement. A court may, in an appropriate case, recognise mutual obligations and grant limited remedies, although compelling a religious body to readmit a member or awarding damages may present separate difficulties.

An application to amend a claim should be refused where the proposed contractual case is inadequately formulated, cannot be shown to arise against an existing party, or has no real prospect of establishing an actionable contractual obligation.

The claimant brought a slander claim arising from his expulsion from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and sought permission to add a contractual claim concerning the process leading to that expulsion. An earlier slander claim relating to the 2012 meeting had been struck out on limitation grounds, with an application pending before the Court of Appeal. The defendants opposed the amendment on case-management and contractual grounds, relying on the absence of any legally binding relationship and on the religious context. The central issues were whether the proposed claim was sufficiently formulated against an existing party and whether it had a real prospect of success.

1. The application to amend the particulars of claim was refused. The earlier slander claim had been struck out and no substantive issues had been resolved. Finality had therefore not been achieved, so the application was considered on its own merits rather than being rejected solely because it could have been raised earlier.
2. The fact that the relationship was religious did not, as a matter of general principle, prevent an intention to create legal relations. Where a body summons individuals to determine alleged breaches of rules and exercises powers of punishment or expulsion, contractual or analogous mutual obligations might in some circumstances arise. The courts might then grant limited remedies, such as declaratory relief. The availability of injunctive or monetary relief would require separate consideration.
3. The claimant had not shown an arguable contractual relationship with the second defendant. The defendant’s articles confined membership to elders invited to join, and the claimant did not satisfy those conditions. The proposed pleading also failed to identify adequately the contracting body, the relevant obligation or rule, and an actionable breach.
4. The religious booklets relied upon after the hearing did not alter that conclusion. They described scriptural responsibilities and religious doctrine rather than legally enforceable contractual duties. A v The Trustee of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society [2015] EWHC 1722 (QB) concerned materially different circumstances and did not support the alleged 1992 contract.

An earlier slander claim concerning the 2012 meeting had been struck out on limitation grounds. An application to the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn that ruling was pending. The present application to amend the later claim was refused by the High Court.