Dean v Bowlby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE BLACKBURNE,Mr Justice Blackburne |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1250 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 05 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC07C03107 |
[2009] EWHC 1250 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before: Mr Justice Blackburne
Case No: HC07C03107
Case No: HC07C03020
Steven Moverley-Smith QC and James Kitching (instructed by Bryan Cave) for the Claimant
William Henderson (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Attorney-General
Hubert Picarda QC and Joshua Winfield (instructed by Stone King Sewell LLP) for the Defendants Ruth Nares and Jane Moura Collingridge
Hearing dates: 23 rd, 24 th and 27 th April 2009
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr Justice Blackburne:
Introduction
These two actions concern a dispute among members of what in his skeleton argument for Jane Collingridge and Ruth Nares, representative defendants in both actions, Mr Hubert Picarda QC aptly described as one of the great Churches of Christendom. It is that of the Russian Orthodox Faith. The dispute is principally, if not wholly, between persons who assemble to worship in the Russian Orthodox Cathedral situated in Ennismore Gardens in the Knightsbridge area of central London. The Cathedral, known as the Cathedral of the Dormition of the Mother of God and All Saints, serves both as the parish church of what has been referred to as the London Parish and as the cathedral church serving the Diocese of Sourozh. The existence of the Parish as a community of worshippers of the Russian Orthodox church, served by a priest and regulating their affairs in a structured manner, goes back to before the last War. Its origins can be traced to 1716. The Diocese is of a later date. It was established in October 1962 and extends to the whole of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
For reasons which I shall shortly explain, the unhappy differences, apparently irreconcilable, that have arisen are largely of outlook and approach to matters of worshipping practice, rather than of matters of doctrine or ecclesiology. But they include the extent to which the community of worshippers in the Parish and Diocese should be allowed to continue to worship and practise their faith in the manner that has evolved over many years, that is to say, with minimal interference or direction from the Moscow Patriarchate under whose control the Parish had been since 1946 when the then members of the Parish resolved to accept that jurisdiction. Such control was being exercised by, among other matters, the recognition given by Moscow to those who have ministered to the worshipping community and, not least, by the creation of the Diocese in 1962 and, with it, the despatch to the Diocese from time to time (as occasion has demanded) of bishops and other clergy.
In the spring of 2006, as I shall recall in greater detail later in this judgment, the then senior priest of the Parish and bishop in charge of the administration of the Diocese, Bishop Basil of Sergievo, felt unable any longer to give his allegiance to and recognise the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate but wished instead to transfer his allegiance to and recognise the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Bishop Basil so informed the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (to give him his official designation), His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II, who, by a Decree of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate, relieved Bishop Basil of his responsibility for administering the Diocese. At the same time Bishop Basil had applied to be admitted to, and was immediately accepted into, the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He was accorded the title of Bishop of Amphipolis within the Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of the Russian Tradition in Western Europe. I will explain later, so far as necessary, the differences between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, what community there is between them and where their essential differences lie.
Bishop Basil was followed on this transition by several clergy from within the Diocese of Sourozh and by a number of ordinary worshipping members. Following Bishop Basil's release from his responsibilities by the Moscow Patriarchate, a replacement bishop, Archbishop Innokenty of Korsun, was immediately appointed to take temporary charge of the Parish and Diocese.
Despite this exodus, the Parish and Diocese were not left denuded of clergy or worshipping members. On the contrary, a thriving community continued (and continues) at both parochial and diocesan levels.
The immediate triggers for these proceedings are resolutions passed by members of the governing bodies of the Parish and the Diocese at meetings held just over a year later, in 2007. The resolutions were directed to the future use of certain property and assets available for the use of the Parish and Diocese in accordance with two particular trust deeds.
Taking them in date order, the meeting, in the case of the Diocese, was that of the so-called Diocesan Assembly, purportedly as constituted on 2 May 2006. It was convened by notice in writing issued by the Diocesan trustees on 18 May 2007. The meeting, which was held on 23 June 2007 and was well attended, passed the following resolution:
“Resolved …pursuant to clause 4 of the trust Deed dated 22 April 1979 relating to the Property held for the benefit of the Diocese of Sourozh that for the purposes of the said Trust Deed The Episcopal Vicariate of Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Great Britain and Ireland is the successor to the Diocese of Sourozh and that the Trustees shall hold all property and funds subject to the said Trust Deed on trust for the benefit of the Vicariate and shall use or apply the same in such manner as the Assembly of the Vicariate shall direct.”
I shall refer to that resolution as “the disputed Diocesan resolution”. I will explain later the various references in that resolution.
In the case of the Parish the position was similar. The meeting in question was that of the Parish Council, purportedly as constituted on 13 May 2006. It was convened by notice in writing issued by the Parish trustees on 15 June 2007 and headed “The Russian Orthodox Church in London (Charity Number 254025)” and was held on 19 July 2007. At the meeting, which like the Diocesan Assembly meeting was well attended, it was resolved that:
“Pursuant to clause 4 of the Deed of Trust dated 20 th July 1944, which established the Charity and continues to be its Governing Document, the Parish Council (as constituted on 13 May 2006) hereby resolves as follows:—
That the Orthodox Parish of the Dormition of the Mother of God (Ecumenical Patriarchate), being a body whose main purpose is the furtherance or promotion of the Orthodox Faith, be deemed, for the purposes of the Charity's trust deed to be the successors of the Parish of the Cathedral of the Dormition and All Saints and so also of that Parish of Russian Orthodox Christians in the United Kingdom who at 20 th July 1944 had as their Parish Priest the Reverend Father Vladimir Theokritoff.”
I refer to that as “the disputed Parish resolution”. As with the corresponding Diocesan resolution I will explain the various references in it a little later.
The effect of the two resolutions, if valid, was and is to direct that the assets held subject to the two trust deeds, which include the Cathedral itself and other properties and monies and extend to most of the assets then available for the use of the Parish and Diocese, should thenceforth be used and applied, putting the matter shortly, to promote the religious purposes in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland of the Russian Orthodox Faith under the jurisdiction and subject to the ultimate control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The evidence before the court on the value of these assets is, at best, very approximate. The Parish trust assets are said to be in the region of £2.8 million, excluding the value of the Cathedral which must obviously be very considerable. The value of the Diocesan trust assets ranges from not less than £200,000 to possibly £1 million.
The questions raised by the two actions, which are brought by Mr Adrian Dean on behalf of himself and all other members of the London Parish and the Diocese of Sourozh and which are for trial before me, are whether the resolutions were validly passed, that is to say, whether on the true construction of the clauses in question and in the events that have happened, circumstances had arisen to trigger an entitlement to pass the resolutions and, even if they had, whether the meetings at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association
...Si Ying EvelynandAndrew Chua Ruiming (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent. Case(s) referred to Adrian Gordon Dean v Patience Burne [2009] EWHC 1250 (Ch) (folld) Amrik Singh v Virender Pal Singh Sikka (2 December 1998, CA) (UK) (folld) Associated Nursing Services plc v Kells (16 October 19......
-
Bentley et al. v. Anglican Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster et al., 2010 BCCA 506
...67 Pa. St. R. 138, refd to. [para. 33]. Varsani v. Jesani, [1998] 3 All E.R. 273 (C.A.), consd. [para. 45]. Dean v. Burne et al., [2009] E.W.H.C. 1250 (Ch.), refd to. [para. Organization of Veterans of the Polish Second Corps of the Eighth Army v. Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Cana......
-
Marwaha v Singh & Others
...of the respondents, referred us to several authorities, including Tempest v Lord Camoys [1882] 21 Ch D 571, para 592, Dean v Burne [2009] EWHC 1250 (Ch), Attorney General v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2012] UKUT 421 (TCC), [2012] Ch D 214, esp. at para [220], and Halsbury's La......
-
Religious Charities update - Winter 2010
...timely advice, as the consequences of getting it wrong can be costly. Dean v Burne: A missed opportunity The case of Dean v Burne [2009] EWHC 1250 (Ch) (Blackburne J), which concerned a dispute between two rival groups in the English Russian Orthodox community about the ownership of a Cathe......
-
Equity and Trusts
...Rifle Association [2020] 1 SLR 395 at [149]. 102 Amrik Singh v Virender Pal Singh Sikka (2 December 1998); Dean v Patience Burne [2009] EWHC 1250 (Ch). 103 Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association [2020] 1 SLR 395 at [161]. 104 Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore ......