In hierdie artikel word die uitspraak van die Gaum-saak wat handel oor lidmate wat die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk (NGK) hof toe geneem het as gevolg van besluite wat gedurende die 2016 Buitengewone Algemene Sinode-sitting geneem is oor selfdegeslagverhoudings, en veral die regsgevolge in verband met die nienakoming van prosedurereëlings, bespreek. Eerstens word daar in die artikel gefokus op die inwin van regsadvies en die belang daarvan veral waar die kerk as ’n party by ’n hofsaak betrokke is. Die res van die artikel fokus op die uitspraak van die hof in die Gaum-saak sover dit verband hou met tekortkominge met kerkordelike prosedurereëlings wat die NGK voor die sitting van die Buitengewone Vergadering van die Algemene Sinode tot en met die 2016-besluit gevolg het. Die regsgevolge daarvan word ook uitgelig. Tekortkominge met die voorbereiding vir die hofsaak wat prosedureel van aard is, welke tekortkominge duidelik uit die hofuitspraak blyk, word aangetoon. Laastens word enkele opmerkings oor die gesag van die hof se uitspraak oor grondwetlike kwessies gemaak om aan te toon dat die uitspraak bindend is vir navolging deur ander howe.Legal consequences for non-compliance with church orderly procedures according to the Gaum case regarding decisions by the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed ChurchThis article focuses on a court judgement delivered on 8 March 2019 in Gaum and Others v Van Rensburg NO and Others (40819/17) 2019 ZAGPPHC 52 (Gaum case) that involved members of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) who approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria for a ruling to set aside a decision of the General Synod (GS) adopted at a special meeting held during 7–10 November 2016 regarding same-sex civil unions. The aim of the meeting was to reverse a decision adopted by the General Synod during 2015. The 2015 decision, as summarised by the court, “reconfirmed the equality of all people irrespective of their sexual orientation and gave recognition to the status of civil unions between persons of the same-sex that are characterised by love and fidelity. It permitted Ministers to solemnise such unions, but placed no positive duty on a Minister of the Church to do so. This decision also removed the celibacy requirement for persons that are gay or lesbian to be ordained as a Minister or elder in the Church; such persons could thus be ordained as Ministers or elders in the Church.” The consequence of the 2016 decision was that it set aside the 2015 decision, “in that a gay or lesbian person can only be ordained as a Minister if they are celibate. Furthermore, Ministers are not permitted to solemnise same-sex civil unions.”The legal consequences of decisions made without complying with procedures prescribed in the Church Order, including subordinate regulations adopted in support of the Church Order, as confirmed by the court, are highlighted. The importance of obtaining legal advice, especially in matters involving the Church as a party to a lawsuit and the significance thereof, is mentioned with reference to the sources of Church Law (Policy). Legal advice must be seriously considered, especially advice obtained from senior counsel. The risks of legal advice being wrong or rejected and legal advice being disclosed, thus waiving one’s right of legal advice privilege, are addressed. Unlike law of general application, Church Law such as a Church Order and subordinate regulations must be presented to a court of law by means of evidence. According to a ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeal, a court of law is not bound by how the GS interprets Church Law and a court of law can interpret it as it deems fit and can decide a matter in accordance with such interpretation. The importance of providing legal advisors with all the facts pertaining to the disputes involved is emphasised.