Jaffer v Jaffer

The Chancery Division has a wide inherent jurisdiction to make interim orders in the best interests of a charity. Where the governing contract does not address circumstances creating an operational deadlock, the court may make practical arrangements without determining the parties’ substantive rights or affirming disputed appointments. Interim relief that would effectively grant summary judgment should be refused unless the relevant complaints are established to the summary judgment standard. In an unincorporated association, the rules operate as a contract among members, and the court ordinarily asks what the rules require and the effect of any established non-compliance. Participants exercising constitutional powers for a charity must act fiduciary-mindedly and in the charity’s best interests.

The claimant brought a Part 8 charity claim concerning disputed elections and appointments within the World Federation of the Khoja Shia IthnaAsheri Muslim Communities. He challenged the January 2020 presidential election and the purported appointment of interim office bearers at an Executive Council meeting on 25 July 2020.

The claimant sought interim appointment of an independent person to conduct a fresh presidential election, or expedited directions. The first to sixth defendants sought authority to discharge the functions of the office bearers, authority for the Conference to meet remotely, and directions concerning resolutions on the 2020 election. The central issues were whether interim relief should be granted before trial and what arrangements best served the charity pending determination of the disputed matters.

1. The claimant’s application for interim appointment of an independent person was dismissed. Such relief would have been justified only if the claimant had established his complaints to the summary judgment standard. There was no summary judgment application, and the extensive disputed evidence made such relief inappropriate.

2. The court had a wide inherent jurisdiction, when invoked in relation to a charity, to make orders required in the charity’s best interests. The rules of an unincorporated association operate as a contract among its members. At trial, the court would need to determine what the rules required and the effect of any established non-compliance. At this interim stage, however, the court also had to address circumstances not dealt with by the contractual constitution.

3. The Conference should have the opportunity to consider the complaints about the 2020 election. It was in the charity’s best interests for the Conference to meet without further delay, and it was therefore authorised to meet remotely by electronic means enabling participants to communicate with one another.

4. The first to sixth defendants were authorised temporarily to discharge the necessary functions of the office bearers during the Conference and, if a fresh election were resolved upon, until the conclusion of a later Conference. This authorisation did not affirm the 25 July 2020 appointments or the result of the 2020 election. The court also confirmed that the Conference had power, at least on the temporary basis required to resolve the disputes, to annul the presidential election and decide upon a fresh election.

5. Participants exercising powers at the Conference, including the interim office bearers, Electoral Commission and Presidents Strategic Sub-Committee, were reminded to act in the charity’s best interests and without personal allegiance to either side of the dispute. The defendants were largely successful on their application. The claimant’s significant interim relief failed, while the remaining case-management relief was adjourned to the case management conference.