Sandhu v Singh & Ors (No. 2)

Where a charity’s internal governance has broken down and there are no properly appointed trustees able to manage its affairs, the High Court may direct the trustees to take over administration pending a new election. The appropriate election process may be referred to the Charity Commission, particularly where the governing document gives rise to competing interpretations, the charity’s funds have been put at risk, and further internal litigation is likely. The court should leave the Commission at the forefront of resolving internal charity disputes where it is better placed to determine the practical election arrangements.

The judgment followed an earlier substantive decision concerning the validity of elections within a Sikh temple charity. The court had declared that the five Singhs selected in May 2015 were not validly recognised or accepted by the congregation and that the purported election of the management committee was invalid.

At the post-judgment hearing, the parties disagreed about the next steps. The claimants sought a referral to the Charity Commission for guidance on completing the election. The defendants sought restoration of the previous management committee as a caretaker body and resumption of the 2015 election process. The central issue was what administrative and electoral arrangements should now be made.

1. Order made. The trustees were directed to take over administration and management of the charity pending completion of election processes to put in place a current management committee serving until May 2019.
2. The court held that the purported 2015 management committee had no authority because it had not been validly elected. The earlier 2013–2015 committee had ceased to function properly and was at loggerheads. Returning it to office as a caretaker committee would therefore be a recipe for disaster and would conflict with the governing constitution.
3. The constitutional provision dealing with dismissal of the committee and election board could properly be engaged. The court regarded the 2015 committee as dismissed retrospectively and considered that the breakdown in the predecessors’ ability to function, together with their disregard of the constitution, provided a particular reason for dismissal.
4. The court also took account of the absence of properly appointed trustees, the risk or misuse of charitable funds, and the Charity Commission’s guidance on internal disputes. Those matters supported referral to the Commission.
5. The question of the appropriate electoral process was referred to the Charity Commission for guidance or order. The Commission was left to decide whether to resume the process from 2 May 2015, delegate election of the five Singhs to the trustees, or adopt another course. The banking order might require modification because the trustees were to take charge of the charity’s funds.

This was a post-judgment hearing following the substantive judgment in the same action. The court made directions concerning administration, the completion of the election process and referral to the Charity Commission.