Bhamani & Ors v Sattar & Ors

Charity trustees may control access to charitable property and may seek an injunction to restrain trespass. Their powers are not absolute. They must exercise them for the purposes of the charity and consistently with their duties as trustees.

Where a defendant shows a real prospect that an exclusion decision exceeded those powers or breached fiduciary duties, the issue may require a trial and should not ordinarily be determined summarily. An interim injunction may nevertheless be refused where revised undertakings fairly balance the trustees’ interests in managing the property against worshippers’ interests in using it.

The claimants, comprising members of the management committee and trustees of a mosque charity, sought summary judgment for a final injunction preventing the defendants, worshippers and community members, from entering or remaining on the property.

The claimants relied on their possessory and proprietary position and argued that they had an unfettered right to exclude the defendants. The defendants disputed that proposition and contended that the exclusion decision breached the claimants’ powers and duties as charity trustees. The claimants also sought an interim injunction, while a prior application had resulted in undertakings regulating conduct at the property.

1. Summary judgment. The admission in the Defence did not establish that the individual claimants had sufficient possessory title to sue. Any such admission was permitted to be withdrawn under CPR Part 14.1(5). The Management Committee, however, had title to sue. Under the Constitution, day-to-day management and control of the property were vested in it, and it could bring proceedings to restrain trespass for the purposes of the charity.
2. Charity trustees are entitled to possess and manage charitable property, but their powers must be exercised to further the charity’s purposes. The Management Committee could exclude members of the public, including community members, where exclusion promoted those purposes and the interests of the community as a whole. It did not have an absolute or unfettered right to exclude them. The defendants could therefore argue that the exclusion decision exceeded the committee’s powers or breached its duties.
3. The evidence raised a real prospect that the defendants could establish that the prohibition was imposed for an improper purpose or otherwise contrary to the trustees’ duties. Resolving that issue required a fuller investigation of the facts. Summary judgment was therefore dismissed.
4. Interim injunction. There were serious issues both as to the validity and communication of the prohibition and as to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. Damages would not be an adequate remedy. Although the risk of disorder strongly favoured an injunction, the defendants were worshippers and objects of the charity in the broader sense, and had previously been permitted to attend subject to undertakings.
5. Revised undertakings offered by the defendants struck a fair balance. The interim injunction application was dismissed and adjourned until trial, with permission for the claimants to restore it if the undertakings were breached. The defendants were limited to private prayer and prohibited from protesting against the Management Committee on the property. The costs of the applications were reserved.