Choudhury & Anor v Stepney Shahjalal Mosque & Cultural Centre Ltd & Ors

Proceedings concerning the membership or trusteeship of an incorporated charity may constitute charity proceedings where they engage the court’s charity or charitable-trust jurisdiction. Under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011, such proceedings require Charity Commission authorisation or, following refusal, leave of a Chancery Division judge. A stay does not automatically terminate an interim injunction. The court may continue or modify interim relief under CPR Part 25.10, applying the overriding objective and balancing the need to preserve charitable assets, prevent escalation and avoid determining the underlying dispute prematurely.

The claimants and defendants were trustees and members of a charitable company operating a mosque. Each side claimed that the other had been removed from membership or trusteeship following disputed meetings. The claimants sought to restrain a proposed election and further meetings while the underlying Companies Court proceedings continued.

The defendants submitted that the proceedings were charity proceedings requiring prior permission under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011. They also argued that the interim injunction should lapse when the proceedings were stayed. The central issues were whether permission was required and what interim relief, if any, should continue pending the Charity Commissioners’ decision.

1. The proceedings were charity proceedings within section 115 of the Charities Act 2011. Section 353(1) defined trusts broadly enough to include a charity established as a company limited by guarantee. The claim therefore engaged the statutory charity jurisdiction, notwithstanding its presentation in the Companies Court.

2. The court applied Muman v Nagasena [2000] 1 WLR 299, which identified disputes about who were the trustees, and potentially the members, of a charity as the kind of proceedings requiring permission. The statutory permission requirement also served to prevent charitable funds being dissipated through internal litigation.

3. Because no permission had been obtained from the Charity Commissioners or the court, the proceedings were stayed pending resolution of any application to the Commissioners.

4. CPR Part 25.10 expressly allowed an interim injunction to continue despite a stay. Continuation was not confined to exceptional circumstances. The stay was an important discretionary factor, considered with the overriding objective in CPR 1.1.

5. Neither allowing the disputed election to proceed nor leaving both factions unrestricted was appropriate. The court could not resolve the underlying control dispute at this interlocutory stage. To preserve the charity’s assets and hold the position pending the Commissioners’ decision, it granted a modified injunction preventing either faction from calling further meetings or holding an election.

6. The modified injunction was continued for three months, with liberty to apply. It would expire thereafter unless varied or discharged, and the court confirmed that its interim jurisdiction included power to make an order pending an application under section 118 of the Charities Act 2011.

First-instance interlocutory decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.