Mr Wall, a real estate broker, had been expelled from his Jehovah's Witnesses congregation after a finding of two occasions of drunkenness, including an incident of verbal abuse. The incidents followed an earlier decision to disfellowship his dependent 15-year-old daughter, as a consequence of which the rest of the family were compelled to shun her and she was forced to leave home. Mr Wall's expulsion compelled his family and other Jehovah's Witnesses to shun him; the 50% of his customers who were Jehovah's Witnesses refused to do business with him. He sought a judicial review of the expulsion, arguing that the court had jurisdiction to hear the application as the decision affected his civil and property rights. A chambers judge of the Queen's Bench Division decided that the court had jurisdiction to hear the application on the basis that the decision had had an economic impact on Mr Wall, while expressing concerns about whether the rules of natural justice had been adhered to. The judicial committee of the congregation appealed.

The appellants argued that the only basis for establishing jurisdiction over the decision of a church was when civil and property rights were affected and that in this case the alleged damage to Mr Wall's livelihood was not interference with a civil or property right sufficient to establish the court's jurisdiction. The court observed that there was a line of authority, starting with Enderby Town Football Club Ltd v Football Association Ltd [1971] 1 Ch 591, which established that the court also had jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organisation when a breach of natural justice was alleged. Mr Wall alleged numerous breaches of natural justice: the failure to provide particulars of the allegations against him; the failure to inform him of the process to be used or whether he was entitled to instruct legal counsel; the failure to provide written reasons for the decision; and the internal appeal. On that basis and in a majority decision, the court, while expressing no view as to the merits of Mr Wall's application, found that the Queen's Bench Division had jurisdiction to hear the application. The appeal was dismissed.

In a fully reasoned dissenting memorandum, Wakeling J stated that, as an unincorporated religious association, the appellants’ decisions were not susceptible to judicial review and that, in any event, the expulsion decision did not give rise to any justiciable question. Mr Wall had no right to belong to the congregation and members of the congregation could not be compelled to associate with him. A civil court should decline to review the membership decision of a religious association as such bodies have the right to determine with whom they wish to worship. Further, Mr Wall had no identifiable civil or property rights which were affected by the expulsion decision. The validity of his realtor's licence was not affected by the decision. He also had no contract with the congregation which entitled him to due process before his expulsion. [RA]