Khoo Jeffrey v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church: Unincorporated Associations, Religious Trusts & Doctrinal Disputes

The Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Khoo Jeffrey and others against Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and its trustees regarding the use of premises and funds. The dispute arose from doctrinal differences between the Far Eastern Bible College and the Church. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the college's adoption of a new doctrine did not constitute a deviation from the fundamental principles of the charitable purpose trust.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a religious charity's deviation from founding principles. Court allowed the appeal, addressing trust property and doctrinal alignment.

1.7 Decision Date

25 April 2011

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Khoo Jeffrey	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Ang Cheng Hock of Allen & Gledhill LLP Tham Wei Chern of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ramesh Kumar of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Life Bible-Presbyterian Church	Respondent	Other	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Quek Mong Hua of Lee & Lee Esther Yee of Lee & Lee

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
V K Rajah	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ang Cheng Hock	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Tham Wei Chern	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Ramesh Kumar	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Quek Mong Hua	Lee & Lee
Esther Yee	Lee & Lee

4. Facts

The Church and the College shared the same premises.
The College was established to train young Christians as evangelists, pastors and teachers.
The Church and the College raised funds jointly for the purchase and construction of buildings on the Premises.
Tensions arose between the Church and the College when the College endorsed the VPP doctrine.
The Church sought to exclude the College from functioning at the Premises.
The College registered as a charity under the Charities Act with a new constitution.
The College adopted the VPP doctrine, while the Church adhered to the VPI doctrine.

5. Formal Citations

Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others, Civil Appeal No 126 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 18
Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others, , [2010] SGHC 187

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1955-01-01	Life Bible-Presbyterian Church formally constituted.
1957-08-01	Trustees of the Church purchased a 99-year lease over 9 and 9A Gilstead Road.
1960-09-19	Decision taken to establish Far Eastern Bible College.
1961-11-01	Board of directors for the College constituted.
1962-01-01	Far Eastern Bible College established.
1962-09-17	Far Eastern Bible College moved into 9 and 9A Gilstead Road.
1963-02-16	Life Bible-Presbyterian Church moved into the church building.
1986-01-01	Life Bible-Presbyterian Church obtained independent registration as a society.
1987-01-01	Life Bible-Presbyterian Church registered as a charity.
1990-04-30	Acquisition of 10 Gilstead Road completed.
2002-01-01	Tensions developed between the College and the Church over the VPP doctrine.
2003-08-20	Rev Timothy Tow resigned as pastor of the Church.
2003-11-19	Board of the College informed the Church of its intention to register the College as a charity.
2004-01-26	Far Eastern Bible College registered as a charity under the Charities Act.
2004-07-17	Church informed the College it could no longer use its properties.
2008-01-28	Church sent letter stating the College could only occupy the Premises if it gave an undertaking not to teach the VPP doctrine.
2008-03-01	Church sent letter stating the College could only occupy the Premises if it gave an undertaking not to teach the VPP doctrine.
2008-01-01	Suit 648 instituted by the Church.
2009-01-01	Suit 278 instituted by the Appellants.
2011-04-26	Judgment reserved by the Court of Appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Deviation from Fundamental Principles of Religious Charity
- Outcome: The court held that the College's adoption of the VPP doctrine did not constitute a deviation from the fundamental principles of the charitable purpose trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Doctrinal differences
  - Interpretation of trust objects
- Related Cases:
  - (1813) 1 Dow 1
  - (1820) 2 Bli. 529
  - (1817) 36 E.R. 135
  - (1865) 13 LT 235
  - [1904] A.C. 515
  - [1999] Ch. 219
Legal Status of Unincorporated Association
- Outcome: The court determined that the College was an unincorporated association.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Membership rights
  - Amendment of constitution
- Related Cases:
  - [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1113
  - [1972] 1 W.L.R. 552
Validity of Charitable Purpose Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the Premises were impressed with a charitable purpose trust for the joint use of the Church and the College.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Certainty of intention
  - Certainty of object matter
  - Certainty of subject matter
- Related Cases:
  - (1977) 136 CLR 353
  - [1962] Ch 832

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that funds were impressed with a charitable purpose trust
Order for schemes to be settled in respect of the charitable purpose trusts
Injunction to prevent the Appellants from using the Premises
Account of moneys held by the College

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration of Trust
Breach of Trust
Injunction

10. Practice Areas

Charity Law
Trust Litigation
Religious Organization Law

11. Industries

Religious Institutions

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Attorney General of Queensland v Cathedral Church of Brisbane	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1977) 136 CLR 353	Australia	Cited for the principle that funds raised for a charitable purpose are impressed with a charitable purpose trust.
Neville Estates v Madden and Ors	Chancery Division	Yes	[1962] Ch 832	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that funds raised for a charitable purpose are impressed with a charitable purpose trust.
Re Vernon’s Will Trusts	Chancery Division	Yes	[1972] 1 Ch 300	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the dissolution of the institutional form does not terminate the charitable purpose as long as that purpose is still capable of being carried out.
Re Lead Workmen’s Fund Society	Chancery Division	Yes	[1904] 2 Ch 196	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that if the members of the Board cannot be ascertained, the court should order that the College be dissolved under the equitable jurisdiction of the High Court.
Re Tobacco Trade Benevolent Association Charitable Trusts	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1958] 1 W.L.R. 1113	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that when the members of an unincorporated association seek to amend its constitution in a way that does not comply with the prescribed procedure, the purported amendment would be invalid.
Baldry v Feintuck and Others	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1972] 1 W.L.R. 552	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the members of a charitable association did not have the power to change its constitution in a way that allowed its funds to be used for non-charitable purposes.
Abbatt v Treasury Solicitor	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1969] 1 W.L.R. 1575	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the failure of the members to ensure the enforcement of the Constitution would amount to a waiver of the breach, as well as acquiescence by them to the members whose terms had expired to remaining on the Board.
Craigdallie v. Aikman	House of Lords	Yes	(1813) 1 Dow 1	Scotland	Cited for the proposition that in the event of a dispute between opposing factions of a religious institution, the court would favour the faction that adhered to the practices of the original members.
Craigdallie v. Aikman (No. 2)	House of Lords	Yes	(1820) 2 Bli. 529	Scotland	Cited for the proposition that in the event of a dispute between opposing factions of a religious institution, the court would favour the faction that adhered to the practices of the original members.
Attorney-General v Pearson	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1817) 36 E.R. 135	England and Wales	Cited for the proposition that the court would not allow the members of a religious institution from promulgating a different doctrine if doing so would deviate from the purpose of the trust.
Attorney General v Aust	High Court of Chancery	Yes	(1865) 13 LT 235	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that resort to extrinsic evidence was appropriate if the trust deed did not reveal what were the fundamental tenets.
General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v Lord Overtoun	House of Lords	Yes	[1904] A.C. 515	Scotland	Cited for the principle that a mere divergence from the original practice of a religious institution’s founders was insufficient to show a breach of trust. The divergence had to be related to a “fundamental and essential” doctrine of the institution before it could amount to a breach of trust.
Bannatyne v Overtoun	House of Lords	Yes	[1904] AC 515	Scotland	Cited for the principle that a mere divergence from the original practice of a religious institution’s founders was insufficient to show a breach of trust. The divergence had to be related to a “fundamental and essential” doctrine of the institution before it could amount to a breach of trust.
MacKay v MacLeod	Court of Session	Yes	10 January 1952, unreported	Scotland	Cited for the principle of construction: If the difference leading to a secession relates to a matter not covered by the constitution and standards, and if therefore the continuing section cannot be shown to have violated or departed from the constitution and standards, the seceders secede at their peril.
Free Church of Scotland v General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland	Court of Session	Yes	[2005] 1 S.C. 396	Scotland	Cited to illustrate the fine balance which the court has to maintain when it tries to determine whether a particular tenet is a fundamental principle of a religious institution.
Varsani v Jesani (Cy Pres)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] Ch. 219	England and Wales	Cited to suggest that there is an alternative to the “zero-sum” method which the courts had traditionally employed to resolve disputes of this nature.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Charities Act (Cap. 37, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Societies Act (Cap 311, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Charities Act 1993 (UK)	United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Unincorporated Association
Charitable Purpose Trust
Verbal Plenary Preservation
Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Westminster Confession of Faith
Religious Doctrine
Fundamental Principles
Charities Act
Presbytery
Ecclesiastical Control

15.2 Keywords

charity
trust
religious
doctrine
unincorporated association
bible
church
college

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Trust Law	85
Charitable Giving	70
Religious Law	60
Unincorporated Associations	50
Property Law	30
Corporate Law	20
Contract Law	20
Administrative Law	10

16. Subjects

Trusts
Charities
Religious Organizations
Doctrinal Disputes