Sandhu v Singh & Ors [2018] EWHC 712 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

Sandhu v Singh & Ors [2018] EWHC 712 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

The election of the 5 Singhs on 2.5.15 was invalid because the congregation was denied a genuine and reasonable opportunity to object to their appointment, contrary to the requirements of the GNG Constitution. The imposition of a requirement for written objections and the removal of objectors from the worship hall prevented the congregation from exercising its constitutional right to object. Consequently, the 5 Singhs were not validly elected, lacked authority to elect the Management Committee, and the MC was not validly constituted.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 712 (Ch)
Parties
Part 20 Claimant: Sukhbinder Singh Sandhu; Part 20 Claimant: Surjit Singh Mattu; Part 20 Claimant: Ajit Singh Brainch; Part 20 Defendant: Tarsem Singh; Part 20 Defendant: Manjit Singh Boparai; Part 20 Defendant: The Charity Commission; Part 20 Defendant: Her Majesty's Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Part 20 Claim (property Trusts and Probate) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed. Declaration that the 5 Singhs and current MC were not elected in accordance with the Constitution; orders for their removal and for new elections per the Constitution.
Legal Topics
Election Validity, Interpretation of Constitutions, Charity Governance, Objections to Elections, Role of Congregation in Religious Charities
Charity Law Trusts and Estates Constitutional Law (associations) Election Validity Interpretation of Constitutions Charity Governance Objections to Elections Role of Congregation in Religious Charities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhbinder Singh Sandhu

Part 20 Claimant

Surjit Singh Mattu

Part 20 Claimant

Ajit Singh Brainch

Part 20 Claimant

Tarsem Singh

Part 20 Defendant

Manjit Singh Boparai

Part 20 Defendant

The Charity Commission

Part 20 Defendant

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 20 Claim (property Trusts and Probate) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the constitutional requirements for election of the Management Committee (MC)?
  2. 2 Was the election of the 5 Singhs on 2.5.15 valid?
  3. 3 Were legitimate objections made by the congregation on 3.5.15, and were they properly considered?

Ratio Decidendi

The election of the 5 Singhs on 2.5.15 was invalid because the congregation was denied a genuine and reasonable opportunity to object to their appointment, contrary to the requirements of the GNG Constitution. The imposition of a requirement for written objections and the removal of objectors from the worship hall prevented the congregation from exercising its constitutional right to object. Consequently, the 5 Singhs were not validly elected, lacked authority to elect the Management Committee, and the MC was not validly constituted.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Declaration that the 5 Singhs and current MC were not elected in accordance with the Constitution; orders for their removal and for new elections per the Constitution.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 5 Singhs and current MC were not elected in accordance with the Constitution.
  • Order that the 5 Singhs and current MC are forthwith removed from office.