Shergill v Purewal and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Leveson,Lord Justice Richards,Lord Justice Maurice Kay |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 815 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2011/0025 |
| Date | 22 June 2011 |
[2011] EWCA Civ 815
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(SIR CHARLES GRAY)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Lord Justice Richards
and
Lord Justice Leveson
Case No: A2/2011/0025
Mr Simeon Thrower and Mr Jagdeep Sekhon (instructed by Sahota Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr Jonathan Crystal (instructed by Blacks Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
(As Approved)
On 14 December 2010, Sir Charles Gray, sitting as an additional judge of the Queen's Bench Division, stayed an action in libel brought by Mr Daljit Singh Shergill against Mr Rajinder Singh Purewal and PTI Derby Limited. It was based upon three articles published in the Panjab Times owned by PTI Derby Limited, and said to have been edited by Mr Purewal, although that fact was denied. I shall refer to them collectively as "the newspaper". The action was stayed on the basis that the claim was not justiciable, on the grounds that it would require the court to determine religious doctrinal disputes and the extent to which religious procedures have been observed. The issues fell "within the territory which the courts, by self-denying ordinance, will not enter". On the following day, he ordered that Mr Shergill, the claimant, pay the costs of Mr Purewal and PTI Derby Limited ("the defendants") up to and including 17 June 2010 and that the defendants pay the costs of the claimants, including the costs of preparation for trial, and said that the claimants do pay the defendants' costs for an application for a stay, in each case on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. Pursuant to leave granted by Smith LJ, the defendants appeal against the order for costs, which, as Sir Charles fully appreciated, leaves the newspaper facing a substantial balancing bill to pay Mr Shergill.
It is unnecessary to describe the background to the claim in any detail. Although Mr Shergill strongly contested the application for a stay, the judge concluded that the claim was intimately connected with allegations concerning the circumstances in which a successor is said to have been appointed to His Holiness Sant Baba Harbajan Singh Ji Varkat Maharaj following his sudden death, leaving neither a named successor nor a will. Mr Shergill supported a contention that a Bhekh or conclave of senior priests had appointed as successor a holy man now styled as His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Marahaj, Mr Shergill is also involved in proceedings to obtain title to premises, or grudwaras, used by this sect of the Sikh religion in this country. The newspaper has been critical of Mr Shergill, and challenges the appointment of Baba Jeet, whom it claims is improperly passing himself off as the heir to His Holiness Sant Baba Harbajan Singh Ji Varkat Maharaj.
At the same as these proceedings have been ongoing, another libel action with a similar background circumstance was being pursued. On 17 May 2010, Eady J stayed the action on the basis that the issue to be determined was non-justiciable; see His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group & Hardeep Singh [2010] EWHC 1294 QB. Both parties were represented by leading and junior counsel, and for both sides were junior counsel also instructed in the trial at first instance of this litigation. The result of the proceedings was thus known to all, although an appeal was intimated. No step was taken to stay these proceedings or to raise the issue for the justiciability of the claim was likely to have fallen to be determined at some stage in any event, if only because the court's self-denying ordinance would inevitably fall to be considered.
Far from the matter being brought to the attention of the court, Mr Jonathan Crystal for Mr Shergill continued to press the claim, and Mr Henry Spooner name) for the newspaper maintained a complete defence. It would be wrong, however, to suggest that the newspaper ignored the result of the earlier litigation. On 6 July 2010, purportedly acting pursuant to CPR 32.18, the newspaper served a notice to admit facts in these terms:
"The Claimant is required to admit that the core issues, problems and troubles involving and attaching to the Claimant's attendance at the Oldbury Gudwara, on those occasions referred to in the articles complained of all relate to and eminate from the religious/doctrinal dispute, involving the successorship, authority and spiritual status within Sikhism of the holy man in India who refers to himself as "His Holiness Saint Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj", for which the claimant is a leading proponent of, supporter and promoter. The Claimant's disputed advancement of "His Holiness" at Oldbury is the root cause of all the "troubles" complained of in all the articles."
For my part, this notice contains facts, assertions and conclusions, and it is not in the least surprising that no such admission was made. On the other hand, in a letter dated 22 July 2010, the newspaper made the position clear in these terms:
"You are of course aware of the costs implications of your refusal to admit should the trial judge make a finding (which he can do irrespective of what the parties have pleaded) that issues at the core of this case are religious and hence non-justiciable.
If the trial is stayed/aborted as a consequence of your refusal to admit this notice, then we put that down entirely to your conduct in refusing to admit this Notice to Admit, and we shall claim our costs for the entire action up to the point it be stayed and/or dismissed even if at trial."
The reason for that letter was a response to the notice to admit also dated 22 July, but antecedent to the letter to which I have just referred, emanating from Mr Shergill's solicitors, which specifically challenged the suggestion that justiciability had been determined by Eady J. The letter reads:
"We also do not agree that the Decision of Learned Justice Eady in the case of His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group and Another has any relevance or bearing on the issues in this case.
We respectfully refer you to our pleaded case and the defamatory meanings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohinder Singh Khaira v Daljit Singh Shergill
...libel brought by the first claimant in these proceedings as raising doctrinal issues relating to the Sikh religion and traditions) and [2011] EWCA Civ 815 allowing an appeal against order for costs. 25 It is not contended by Mr Hill QC that religious bodies or groups enjoy a spiritual inde......