Khoo Jeffrey v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 26 April 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGCA 18 |
Year | 2011 |
Date | 26 April 2011 |
Published date | 04 July 2011 |
Hearing Date | 03 December 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Ang Cheng Hock SC, Mr Tham Wei Chern and Mr Ramesh Kumar (M/s Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Citation | [2011] SGCA 18 |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Quek Mong Hua and Ms Esther Yee (M/s Lee & Lee) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 126 of 2010 |
The dispute in the present case raises several questions of law relating to the principles that govern the operation of unincorporated associations and religious charitable trusts. In particular, it raises the thorny question of what happens when a religious charity is alleged to have deviated from the fundamental principles upon which it was founded.
The Appellants are nine individuals who are the members of the board of directors of the Far Eastern Bible College that was, on 26 January 2004, registered as a charity under the Charities Act (Cap. 37, 2007 Rev Ed) (“Charities Act”) (“the 2004 College”). The core of the present dispute relates to the question of whether the 2004 College is the same entity as the bible college that was first established in 1962 (“the College”). The Respondents are the Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (“the Church”) and its trustees. Both the Church and the College were until 2004 located at the same premises at 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road (“the Premises”), on which the Church has a lease (held through trustees). From 2007, the Church sought to exclude the 2004 College from functioning at the Premises.The Church is still operating at the Premises.
Two suits were instituted following from this purported exclusion. In Suit 648 of 2008 (“Suit 648”), one of the Respondents, the Church, sought the following reliefs:
Subsequently, the Appellants felt it necessary to institute Suit 278 of 2009 (“Suit 278”) where they sought these reliefs:
In essence, by Suit 648 the Church wants the 2004 College to vacate the Premises while by Suit 278 the 2004 College wants recognition that the Premises are trust property and that the latter are held for the joint benefit of the Church and the 2004 College. The trial judge (“the Judge”) ruled in favour of the Church and its trustees in both suits. The Judge held that the 2004 College was a different entity from the College, and therefore not entitled to enjoy the property that was for the benefit of the College.
Being dissatisfied with the rulings of the Judge, the Appellants have appealed to this Court.
The Background Formation of the Church and the CollegeIn 1955, the Church was formally constituted as a member of the Bible-Presbyterian Church of Singapore. In 1986, it obtained independent registration as a society under the Societies Act (Cap 311, 1985 Rev Ed), and was registered as a charity in 1987.
On 19 September 1960, at a meeting of the Presbytery of the Bible-Presbyterian Churches of Singapore, a formal decision was taken to establish a college to train young Christians as evangelists, pastors and teachers. A three-man committee consisting of Rev Timothy Tow, Rev Quek Kiok Chiang and Dr Tow Siang Hwa was elected for the purpose of drafting a constitution and prospectus for the college. In November 1961, a board of directors (“the Board”) for the College was constituted, with Rev Timothy Tow at its helm. The Board unanimously adopted the constitution (“the Constitution”) drafted by the three-man committee. The College was duly established the following year.
The close relationship between the Church and the CollegeRight from its inception, the College shared a special relationship with the Church. This was primarily due to two reasons. First, the pastor of the Church, Rev Timothy Tow, was the person who had mooted the idea of setting up the College. He was part of the 3 man committee who drafted the Constitution and who later assumed the chairmanship of the Board when the College was first constituted. He also served as the first principal of the College.
Second, the College and the Church had always shared the Premises, over which the Church has a lease held through trustees.
At this juncture, it would be necessary for us to set out briefly how the Church came to be in possession of the Premises and how the College came to operate from the same premises. :
In 2002, tensions developed between the College and the Church when the College’s board endorsed a doctrine known as “Verbal Plenary Preservation” (“VPP”) over the “Verbal Plenary Inspiration” (“VPI”), a doctrine accepted by the Church. Within the Church, there was mounting tension between those who believed in VPP and those who believed in VPI.
On 20 August 2003, during a session meeting of the Church, certain members of the Church expressed strong views against Rev Timothy Tow’s endorsement of the VPP doctrine and he therefore resigned as the pastor of the Church. He and a number of the other members of the Church congregation split from it and founded the True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (“True Life Church”). On 19 November 2003, the Board of the College informed the Church of its intention to register the College itself as a charity.
On 26 January 2004, the members constituting the board of the College obtained registration of a charity called “Far Eastern Bible College” pursuant to the
Matters came to a head on 17 July 2004 when the Church wrote to the 2004 College stating that it would no longer allow the 2004 College to use its properties as the 2004 College had been registered as a separate and independent entity and, therefore, ceased to be a ministry of the Church. Further letters were sent out by the Church on 28 January and 1 March 2008 stating that the 2004 College could only continue to occupy the Premises...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tan Kim Hock Anthony v PP
...Edward Alfred Braham v R [1994] NTCCA 60 (refd) Goh Kah Heng v PP [2010] 4 SLR 258 (refd) Khoo Jeffrey v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church [2011] 3 SLR 500 (refd) Krishnan Chand v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 737; [1995] 2 SLR 291 (refd) Mohammed Ali bin Johari v PP [2008] 4 SLR (R) 1058; [2008] 4 SLR ......
-
Zhao Hui Fang v Commissioner of Stamp Duties
...institutional form and registration as a charity also does not clothe it with such a form: Khoo Jeffrey v Life-Bible-Presbyterian Church [2011] 3 SLR 500 (“Khoo Jeffrey”). Third, in respect of the legislative purpose of the ABSD regime, the Applicants argue that ABSD was not intended to be ......
-
Tan Kim Hock Anthony v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
...2ndEd, 1992) at pp 90–92. In any event, the Court of Appeal in Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others [2011] 3 SLR 500 at [27] clearly did contemplate the possibility of an unincorporated association employing staff, as appears from the following passage: ... Th......
-
SHIFTING PARADIGM OF INVESTMENT BY CHARITIES
...Act (Cap 37, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 21 and 22. See also Varsani v Jesani[1999] Ch 219 and Khoo Jeffrey v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church[2011] 3 SLR 500. 106 See Inheritance (Family Provision) Act (Cap 138, 1985 Rev Ed). 107 See Re White[1893] 2 Ch 41. 108[1910] 2 Ch 124. 109 There are similar case......