Frank Kofi Otuo v Jonathan David Morley and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir David Eady |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 46 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ14D02898 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 15 January 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 46 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Sir David Eady
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Case No: HQ14D02898
The Claimant appeared in person
Mr Eliot Willis (instructed by the Watch Tower Legal Department) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 10 & 11 December 2015
Mr Otuo claims damages for slander in respect of words alleged to have been spoken at a meeting in July 2013, at which he was seeking a review of his "disfellowship" (i.e. expulsion) from the Jehovah's Witnesses. This had taken place following a meeting in 2012 and thereafter been made public at a gathering in July of that year. He now seeks permission to add a claim for breach of contract in respect of the process leading to that expulsion. There was an earlier claim for slander in respect of the 2012 meeting regarding defamatory words spoken on that occasion, but that was struck out on limitation grounds, although there is pending an application before the Court of Appeal whereby that ruling is sought to be overturned. Unfortunately, it seems that it will not be heard until November of 2016.
One of the grounds on which Mr Willis resists the present application is that there is nothing new about the facts on which the Claimant now seeks to rely as constituting a breach of contract and, if he wished to pursue such a claim, he should have brought it forward in the earlier action so that all issues could be resolved at the same time and, correspondingly, the Defendants would not have to be vexed with litigation twice over arising from those events. He cited in support of this submission the well known case of Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100. While it might have been more convenient, as a matter of case management, for all matters relating to the 2012 expulsion to be dealt with in the same action, and resolved at the same time, the fact is that for the moment the earlier claim stands as struck out and may, or may not, so remain. The main policy consideration underlying the Henderson line of cases is that it is desirable to have all related issues dealt with together and for the parties to be confident that there will then be finality. Regrettably, however, there cannot yet be finality: no substantive issues have been resolved. It seems to me, therefore, that I should deal with the present application on its own merits – rather than ruling either that it should have been pleaded in the first case or that the application should have been made in the earlier proceedings (despite the claim having been struck out). It is important to remember that the limitation period relevant to a claim in contract has not yet expired.
Apart from the Henderson point, Mr Willis resists the application on the basis that there has never been any contract, express or implied, between the Second Defendant and the Claimant and that there is accordingly no real prospect of success. More specifically, he argues that any relationship between the parties does not arise from an intention to create legal relations, but can only be of a religious or spiritual nature. In this context, he cited Sharp v Bishop of Worcester [2015] EWCA Civ 399 and Moore v President of the Methodist Conference [2013] UKSC 29.
I should first address the Claimant's pleaded case. He founds his claim in contract upon his request in June 1992 to be admitted as an international member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. This was made, while he was in Ghana, to a Mr Daniel Osei Yaw of the Patasi congregation. That request, he says, was put before the Body of the Elders and thereafter he was informed by Mr Yaw and "a fellow Elder" of the same congregation, called Mr Francis Bugyei, that they were authorised agents of the Second Defendant's organisation and they were prepared to admit him to it as an international member (on certain terms with which he claims he had subsequently always complied). This cannot be right, submits Mr Willis, because the Second Defendant did not come into existence until 1999. Furthermore, he cannot be a member of that body since, as its articles of association make clear, membership is confined to those who are (a) elders and (b) invited to join. That contention is clearly borne out by clauses 1.3 and 1.3.1 of the articles. Neither of these conditions applies in the Claimant's case.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank Kofi Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain
...stood dismissed on limitation grounds, a decision later reversed by the Court of Appeal.) In his reserved judgment of 15 January 2016, [2016] EWHC 46 (QB), Sir David dismissed the application for permission to 4 The Judge was not persuaded by the defendants' argument that the Court would n......