Supreme Court of Canada
May 31, 2018, Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall
“religious groups are free to determine their own membership and rules, … The procedural rules of a particular religious group may involve the interpretation of religious doctrine, such as in this case. The courts have neither legitimacy nor institutional capacity to deal with contentious matters of religious doctrine.”
High Court of England and Wales (Upheld by Court of Appeal of England and Wales)
June 7, 1019, Otuo v Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain
“It is to be expected that a religious body which is guided by and which seeks to apply Scriptural principles will have the power to procure that in an appropriate case a sinner can be expelled. Among other things, this is sensible, if not essential, because someone who is unable or unwilling to abide by Scriptural principles not only does not properly belong as a member of such a body but also, unless removed, may have an undesirable influence on the faithful.”
Niigata District Court
April 9, 2020, Case 2018 [Wa] 71
“This case is about the plaintiff, who … demands, based on personal rights, that as the measure of a discontinuance of (an injunction against) the disfellowshipping of this case, the defendants stop treating her as a disfellowshipped believer.
… judging the validity of the disfellowshipping of this case is deeply related to the content of religious doctrine and faith, and it is impossible to judge the validity or lack thereof unless one steps into the content of said doctrine and faith.
… none of the claims of the plaintiff are suited to be ultimately resolved by application of law, and are not a “legal dispute” as put in Article 3 of the Court Act.
According to the above, all of the claims of the plaintiff are unlawful. Therefore, they are dismissed without determination on the merits.”
Source: Hanrei Jihou No. 2487, p. 75, Westlaw Japan (Reference number 2020WLJPCA04096002)
Saga District Court, Takeo Branch
November 8, 2019, case number 2019 (Wa) No. 32
“This case is about the plaintiff, who … claim(ed) that the disfellowshipping of him decided by the defendants was invalid. He … requested the confirmation that this disfellowshipping was invalid, and also claimed that … this invalid disfellowshipping was a tortious act.
… it can be seen that the disfellowshipping by the defendants was a measure that makes one lose their status in the religious organization as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This being the case, the loss suffered by this disfellowshipping is limited to the plaintiff’s religious activities inside the religious organization or the religious standing inside the religious organization. Therefore, this dispute regarding the validity of the disfellowshipping does not meet the criteria for a dispute regarding specific rights or legal relationship.
Claim … of the plaintiff requesting confirmation of the invalidity of the disfellowshipping does not fall under a “legal dispute”.
… both claims in this case are not legal disputes. Therefore, they are unlawful. I therefore dismiss the case.”
Source: Westlaw Japan (Reference number 2019WLJPCA11086006)