Solad Sakander Mohammed & Anor v Boston Mohammed & Ors

Interim relief affecting access to charitable premises must be proportionate to the charity’s purposes and the conduct said to justify it. Charity trustees may exclude individuals whose presence disrupts worship or threatens the charity’s operation, but they cannot use an injunction to suppress legitimate discussion of redevelopment proposals. A wide exclusion zone is especially unlikely to be justified. The court must also preserve procedural fairness: interim relief should not effectively determine the dispute before respondents have had a proper opportunity to file evidence and be heard.

The claimants were two registered proprietors and trustees of a mosque held for charitable purposes. They sought urgent interim orders excluding 13 defendants from the mosque and from a two-mile surrounding area. The application followed disputes concerning the mosque’s management, proposed redevelopment, charitable trusts and alleged incidents of violence, attempted occupation and disruption.

The court considered whether the claimants were entitled to interim injunctive relief pending an adjourned hearing, while noting that the wider questions concerning control of the mosque and the trusts on which it was held required determination at trial. The court also considered whether the proceedings should be brought to the attention of the Charity Commission.

1. Interim relief refused and application adjourned. The court declined both the extensive exclusion sought and the narrower form of injunction proposed. The application was adjourned to an “application by order” hearing, at which the defendants would have a fair opportunity to file evidence and the claimants could reply.
2. The registered proprietors held the mosque as charity trustees and not for their personal benefit. The charitable purpose required the mosque to remain available to members of the public wishing to worship, receive religious teaching or obtain the benefits of the charity. Individuals whose presence disrupted those purposes could in principle be excluded. Relief could also be justified if there were renewed violence, an attempt to occupy the mosque, or an attempt to take control of its management outside constitutional procedures.
3. The proposed two-mile exclusion zone was disproportionate. The claimants had no right to restrain discussion of redevelopment proposals merely because that discussion made pursuit of their preferred policy more difficult. An injunction could not properly be used to prevent discussion or demonstrations.
4. The court would not grant relief lasting until trial where the application had not been fully examined and the respondents had not had a proper opportunity to answer the evidence. Interim relief had to be directed to the reasonable protection of the mosque’s function and could not become a mechanism for minutely prescribing the conduct of worshippers.
5. The claimants were directed to provide the order and judgment to the Charity Commission and seek its directions concerning the proceedings. Any defendants associated with the Dewsbury Trust were likewise directed to seek the Commission’s permission before commencing related charity proceedings. Costs of the urgent hearing were awarded to the fourth, fifth and twelfth defendants in the sum of £900, in pro bono form and as costs in the application.

First-instance decision on an interim injunction application. The application was adjourned; the substantive disputes concerning management and the charitable trusts were left for trial.