Peck Constance Emily v Calvary Charismatic Centre Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 11 January 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 7
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 475 of 1988
• Date: 11 January 1991
• Year: 1991
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Fong Kwok Jen (Haridass Ho & Partners)
• Citation: [1991] SGHC 7
• Defendant Counsel: KS Rajah (B Rao & KS Rajah) (watching brief,Vinogopal Ramayah and Hilda Ng (Wee Ramayah & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Members,Standard of proof,Averment of a crime in civil proceedings,Administrative Law,ss 120A, 191, 192 & 193 Penal Code (Cap 224),Removal,Whether such board meeting ever took place,Evidence,Whether board meeting contravened rules of natural justice and/or article in defendants' articles of association,Companies,Right to be heard,Plaintiff avoiding extra-ordinary general meeting to expel her from church,Plaintiff removed as member of defendant company pursuant to company's EGM and board meeting,Whether violated,Balance of probabilities,Applicability of natural justice rules to corporations,Natural justice,Proof of evidence,Applicability to company limited by guarantee,Rights

Cur Adv Vult

This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendants for a declaration that she is still a member of the defendant company which is a company incorporated by guarantee under the Companies Act (Cap 185, 1970 Ed) (the Act) on 13 November 1978.

The principal objects of the defendants are:

(a) To bring the Christian message of salvation from sin by faith in Jesus Christ to one and all.

(b) To encourage believers to receive and live a full gospel testimony.

(c) To help believers in spiritual matters and to further spiritual fellowship.

(d) To engage in such charitable and welfare work as the company may think fit. ...

The defendants or the members collectively are a church (and for this reason, the expression `church` will also be used hereafter to refer to the defendants). The affairs, both secular and religious, of the defendants are managed by a church board comprising the chairman, treasurer and two other elected members, subject to the overriding powers of the chairman in relation to spiritual affairs. The board members are nominated by the chairman subject to ratification by the members. The chairman, whose term of office is unlimited (but subject to removal in certain circumstances), is also the senior pastor of the church and he has power to appoint other pastors. The first chairman of the defendants was Rev Frederick Oliver Seaward III (hereinafter referred to as the `Sr Pastor`).

This action, when commenced on 14 May 1988, was founded on the alleged invalidity of a resolution (the EGM resolution) passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the defendants held on 17 April 1988 (the EGM) which purported to remove the plaintiff as a member. On 3 March 1989, the originating summons was amended to seek two additional declarations that two board meetings of the defendants held on 8 and 19 April 1988 were also null and void. On 28 November 1989, another amendment was made to allege that the EGM resolution was contrary to the rules of natural justice. Finally, on the second day of the hearing, ie 1 December 1989, the originating summons was once more amended to plead that the board meeting of 19 April 1988 had never been held, or alternatively, it contravened the rules of natural justice and/or in breach of art 9 of the articles of association.

As counsel for the defendants has, in the course of the hearing, conceded that the EGM resolution was not legally effective to remove the plaintiff as a member, it is not necessary to consider whether or not the notice of the EGM had been properly served or effected on the plaintiff, and if not, whether the irregularity could be cured under s 392(2) of the Act. It is also not necessary to decide whether the board meeting of 8 April 1988 was null and void on the ground that the plaintiff had no notice of the same as her status as a member was not affected by that meeting.

The remaining issues in dispute at the conclusion of the plaintiff`s case were as follows:

(1) whether there was a board meeting on 19 April 1988, and

(2) if there was, whether the decision made thereat (the board decision) to expel the plaintiff as a member of the defendants was null and void on the grounds that it (a) failed to comply with art 9 in that no persistent efforts had been made to win her back to the standard of faith and conduct required of an ordinary member of the church, and/or (b) contravened the rules of natural justice.

The material events in this action began at the end of 1987 when the church board became aware of serious accusations being made by the plaintiff against the Sr Pastor and the leadership of the church. In addition to the affidavits of certain members of the church board, the following persons also swore affidavits which testified as follows:

(1) Del Tarr, the president of the Bible College at the California Theological Seminary, an affiliate of the church, who was then a pastor, deposed in his affidavit of 14 September 1989 as follows: (a) that in early January 1988, the plaintiff expressed impatience, disdain, and intolerance for a pastor from Indonesia who preached at the meeting held by the defendants; (b) that subsequently, he had had several discussions with the plaintiff when she criticized various aspects of the church organization and leadership and he had counselled her to give the church time, that after a while he formed the view that she was seeking to undermine the church as she had told him that the church leadership and, in particular, the Sr Pastor was misappropriating the funds of the church, preaching false doctrine, propagating a cult (ie an organization which denies the divinity of Jesus Christ) and coercing members into giving tithes, that he corrected and counselled her but she rejected outright his counsel; (c) that she showed a vindictive attitude towards the church and spoke in a defamatory fashion about the church leadership and also displayed deep feelings of ethnocentrism when she said, `All you Westerners should go home and never come back`; (d) that he himself had spent at least 20 hours counselling her.

(2) Danny Tan Kok Hua, a company director, in his affidavit of 10 January 1989, deposed that in January 1988, the plaintiff, without solicitation, told him and his wife as follows: that she had evidence that the Sr Pastor had embezzled large sums of money from the defendants and was in the course of making preparations to abscond with these funds to New Zealand; that the Sr Pastor was `an empire builder` seeking `glorification`. The witness also deposed that the plaintiff`s husband, who was present, had readily agreed.

(3) David Markese, a pastor of the defendants, deposed in his affidavit of 12 May 1988 as follows: (a) that the plaintiff complained to him that the church leadership in general were `yes men` to the Sr Pastor; she cast aspersions on their pastoral and counselling efforts; (b) that she told him that she had worked very hard for the church but was not rewarded for her steadfast efforts as the Sr Pastor was never pleased with them; she also expressed disappointment when she was not selected as an interim helper to assist the divisional pastors in the interim supervision of members of the discontinued Life Group System; (c) that she described the leadership style of the church as one of theocratic authoritarianism; (d) that at several of such encounters, he counselled her on her wrong attitude but she told him not to pray for her.

(4) Oon Cheng Pew, an associate pastor of the church, in his affidavit of 29 November 1989, deposed that in January 1988, the plaintiff telephoned him and voiced her discontent with the church leadership, especially the Sr Pastor who, she alleged, was misappropriating funds, propagating a cult and putting fear into people`s hearts to give money to the church, and that she was gathering more evidence to put the Sr Pastor in jail. Oon said that he counselled her against her sinful conduct and that on the next day, she said her attitude on the previous day was wrong. He told her that her problem with the Sr Pastor should be resolved in private with the Sr Pastor.

(5) Chng Lian Mow, an associate pastor of the church, in his affidavit of 29 November 1989, deposed as follows: (a) that in early 1988, a member of the church telephoned him about the plaintiff`s negative statements about the Sr Pastor which was disturbing spiritually; (b) that in February 1988, when he met her and told her he was going for home visitations, she made a statement (that she was glad that there were still pastors who cared to do so) in which he detected sarcasm and cynicism in her spirit.

(6) Abraham Mendoza, a divisional pastor of the church, in his affidavit of 4 November 1989, deposed (a) that the plaintiff met him in January 1988 in the church`s premises and began to strongly attack and criticize the Sr Pastor (i) as being dictatorial, cultic and abusive of his position, (ii) for his unwise handling of the church`s funds, (iii) the leadership and the `program` of the church, that she also questioned the appointments of two women divisional pastors, saying that she was more qualified than they and that she should have been appointed at least as an assistant divisional pastor and (b) that in March 1988, she telephoned him and again alleged that the Sr Pastor was siphoning funds to another country.

(7) Robert H Houlihan, the Fast East field director for the Division of Foreign Missions of the General Council of The Assemblies of God to which the church was affiliated, in his affidavit of 29 November 1989 deposed that on 2 April 1988 he had met with six members of the church, which included the plaintiff and her husband at their request, when they expressed three concerns to him: (a) that the Sr Pastor was not giving adequate responsibility to the other leaders of the church; (b) that they had suspicions about the management of the church`s funds but were unable to specify the basis of their suspicions; (c) that unless they were given the opportunity to be more deeply involved in the decision-making process of the church, they would proceed to lodge complaints with the relevant authorities. He advised them that if there was a problem, it was an internal problem which should be dealt with by the church pastors and elders. He also told them that the Sr Pastor had not changed his style of leadership since starting the church and that if they did not like his leadership and the church policy, they should consider attending some other church and that he then counselled them as follows: (i) that they should resthe leadership of the local assembly which had five pastors as well as elders who worked with the Sr Pastor and to obey the directions of such leadership; (ii) that they should place the whole matter in the hands of the Lord and that if they were not careful they would bring harm and pain to the work of God and also to themselves and the whole...