Background
The Tees Valley Islamic and Cultural Association operates Masjid-E-Nomira in Middlesbrough. Following a disputed altercation after prayers in April 2023, the association suspended nine people from entering the mosque. Seven suspensions were later lifted, but the memberships of Mirja Shahriar Ahmed and Sabbir Miah were terminated, permanently excluding them from the mosque.
The claimants proposed proceedings alleging that their suspension and expulsion were unlawful under the charity’s constitution. They contended, among other things, that meetings were not properly convened, required notice and opportunities to make representations were not provided, and the decisions were taken for improper purposes or in breach of fiduciary duties. Because the proposed claim concerned the charity’s internal administration, it was “charity proceedings” requiring authorization under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011. The Charity Commission refused authorization, and the claimants’ later High Court application was brought well outside the applicable 21-day period after a complicated series of defective or unsuccessful filings.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court refused permission to bring the proposed charity proceedings and dismissed the claim. Although the claimants had standing and could formulate legally sustainable claims supported by evidence, that was not sufficient: the controlling question was whether litigation was in the interests of the charity as a whole. The court found no demonstrated benefit to the charity, as distinct from the personal benefit sought by the claimants.
The charity had limited liquid resources, while the dispute was likely to require at least a four- or five-day trial and generate costs potentially reaching £50,000 or more for each side. Those costs could not be borne safely by the charity, and the court was not satisfied that the claimants could cover the defendants’ costs if they lost. Refusing permission was therefore the “least worst” course for the charity. Although unnecessary to the decision, the court added that it would also have refused a retrospective extension of time because of the lengthy, partly unexplained delays and repeated procedural failures. The claimants were ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, subject to summary assessment if not agreed.
Key Takeaways
- A legally sustainable challenge to a charity’s internal decision does not by itself justify permission under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011; the charity’s interests are paramount.
- The likely depletion of a charity’s limited funds can outweigh the proposed claimants’ interest in obtaining declaratory or injunctive relief.
- Applicants must observe the 21-day deadline following a Charity Commission refusal and properly commence proceedings under CPR Part 64; repeated defective filings and unexplained delay weigh strongly against an extension.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the protective function of section 115: courts may prevent even an arguable internal-governance claim from proceeding when the likely cost and disruption would harm the charity. Permission proceedings are not a preliminary trial of the dispute but a broader assessment of whether litigation is the best—or least harmful—course for the institution.
For charity trustees, members, and their advisers, the judgment also underscores the need to use the correct procedural route promptly. Challenges to expulsions or governance decisions should be clearly pleaded, directed against the proper parties, and brought within the prescribed period after the Commission’s decision.