A schism within South Auckland’s Calvary Indian Assembly of God has seen part of the congregation barred from church attendance, doors locked and a trespass notice issued. In the absence of a negotiated solution, a decision is needed on what are the criteria for church membership, followed by a vote for new church management, the High Court ruled.
The High Court was told of a split within Calvary Indian membership accelerating in late 2022 on the arrival of a new pastor. With church board members split 2:3, each faction and its supporters sought, without success, to vote out the other faction.
After what proved to be fruitless efforts to have church business conducted under supervision of an independent chair, Mr Son Singh and Mr Rajesh Jattan unilaterally assumed control, the court was told.
The three other trustees were sidelined. Meetings were not held. Members of the rival faction and their supporters were barred from attending church services at the Nikau Road church in Otahuhu.
For a time, Mr Singh took sole control of the church’s bank account.
Messrs Singh and Jattan asked the High Court to remove all Church trustees from control, including themselves, with new elections to be held.
Justice van Bohemen declined to act. Messrs Singh and Jattan had themselves been a major cause of the current impasse, he said. There would be no satisfactory election outcome without first identifying who could stand for office and who could vote.
Evidence was given of confusion within the Church regarding its own rules.
Calvary Indian Church assets are held by a charitable trust, with trustees appointed.
No current financial information for the Church is held on the Charities Register.
Operational decisions were supposedly made separately by board members elected under rules of an incorporated society called the Calvary Indian Assembly of God. Whilst rules had been drafted, no such incorporated society has been registered.
With one exception, all Church trustees were also elected board members. The trustees/elected board members often appeared to be unaware of the legal distinction between the two different parts of their church organisation.
Rules governing societies (incorporated or not) differ from rules governing charitable trusts, in the same way that rules governing the game of rugby union differ from rules governing rugby league. They are similar; but different.
The court cannot use rules governing charitable trusts, as Messrs Singh and Jattan requested, to deal with their separate organisational dispute over daily running of the Assembly, Justice van Bohemen said. Daily organisation is governed by the Church’s unregistered rules, not charities legislation.
The court was told there is separate court proceedings already underway dealing with members’ dispute over election eligibility.
Singh v. Singh – High Court (3.03.25)
25.076