Frank Kofi Otuo v Jonathan David Morley, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain [2016] EWCH 46
Formation of contract; religious groups; whether intention to create legal relations
Facts
Mr Otuo was expelled from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He brought an action for slander regarding words purported to have been spoken at a meeting where he had sought a review of his expulsion. Mr Otuo applied for permission to add a claim for breach of contract regarding the process leading up to, and the manner of his expulsion.
Issues
The Jehovah’s Witnesses argued no contract existed between the parties. They claimed the relationship was religious or spiritual in nature and substance, and there could not be said to have been any intention to create legal relations. Mr Otuo claimed he applied for international membership and his application was placed before the Body of the Elders, and he was thereafter informed he had been accepted upon terms with which he had always complied. He cited several publications which he contended governed the rules of his membership and this, he claimed, pointed to the relationship being contractual in nature.
Decision/Outcome
The argument that where the relationship was within a religious context and, therefore, could never be contractual was rejected. Whether the matter could fall within the court’s jurisdiction would depend on the circumstances. If a religious body summons members before it and assumes powers of punishment or expulsion, it is not self-evident that such matters are excluded from the court’s jurisdiction. Mr Otuo was nonetheless denied permission to append a claim for breach of contract, however, because he failed to persuade the court that the relationship was contractual in nature. There was no evidence of any intention to create legal relations.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Otuo v Morley & Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain [2016] EWHC 46 (QB). The core legal principles discussed — particularly the court’s approach to intention to create legal relations in a religious context — remain good law. The case has been followed in subsequent proceedings involving the same parties, notably Otuo v Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain [2019] EWHC 1349 (QB), in which further claims by Mr Otuo (including the slander claim referenced in this article) were considered. Readers should be aware that the litigation continued beyond the 2016 judgment summarised here, and the later decisions form part of the fuller legal picture. The article’s treatment of the intention to create legal relations doctrine in the context of religious organisations remains accurate as a statement of general principle.
