BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Ali v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2025] UKFTT 718 (GRC) (18 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/718.html
Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 718 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 718 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/CA/2024/0019

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Charity

Decided without a hearing
Decision Given On: 18 June 2025

B e f o r e :

JUDGE HARRIS
____________________

Between:
MADRIS ALI
Appellant
- and -

THE CHARITY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND AND WALES
Respondent

____________________


____________________

HTML VERSION OF DECISION
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Decision:

    1. Having considered the matter afresh pursuant to Rule 4(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, I have decided that there is no jurisdiction for this Tribunal to consider this appeal and I confirm that this appeal remains struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) for want of jurisdiction.

    2. The order of Registrar Bamawo dated 28 March 2025 is confirmed.

    REASONS
  1. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal by way of form GRC1 dated 2 October 2024. The grounds of appeal stated that the appeal sought to challenge the Respondent's refusal to open a statutory inquiry into serious governance failures within the Management Committee and Trustees of Baitul Mukarram Jame Masjid (the "Charity"- registration number 1135376), a religious charity. The Appellant stated that "the Commission has erred in its decision not to investigate and intervene, despite significant risks to public safety and breaches of fiduciary duties by the trustees. This failure of oversight contradicts the Commission's risk management framework, which requires the Commission to safeguard public trust in charities.". The grounds of appeal also included allegations of mismanagement, misconduct, breaches of constitutional law and fiduciary duty by the management committee of the Charity.
  2. On 28 November 2024, Registrar Bamawo issued directions requiring the Appellant to state clearly what provisions of the Charities Act 2011 (the "Act") with reference to Schedule 6 columns 1 and 2 he considers gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to consider this matter and stating any reasons why the matter should not be struck out for want of jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 8(2)(a).
  3. The Appellant responded to this by email dated 10 December 2024. In this he outlined that he considered the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the appeal on the following issues:
  4. a. Refusing consent for proceedings under section 115(5) of the Act;
    b. Failure to act following evidence of misconduct or mismanagement under Section 46 of the Act;
    c. Failure to use regulatory powers under sections 76 and 79 of the Act; and
    d. Failure to act in accordance with section 14 of the Act.
  5. Having considered these submissions, Registrar Bamawo decided on 28 March 2025 to strike the matter out for want of jurisdiction under Rule 8(2)(a) and not to exercise the power to transfer to another court or tribunal under Rule 5(3)(k)(i). The reasons given for this decision were as follows:
  6. The Respondent's email dated 24 September 2024 does not constitute a decision, direction or order mentioned in column 1 of Schedule 6 of the Act pursuant to section 319.
  7. Section 115 of the Act is not a decision, direction or order mentioned in column 1 of Schedule 6 of the Act, so there is no right of appeal to this Tribunal. Registrar Bamawo noted that the language of this section refers explicitly to proceedings before a court not before this Tribunal.
  8. 7. Under Section 46 of the Act, what is appealable is where the Respondent decides to institute an inquiry. Further, as a registered member the Appellant does not fall within the class of persons who may appeal under column 2.
  9. The Respondent cannot exercise its powers under sections 76 and 79 of the Act unless it has already instituted an inquiry under section 46. As it has not here, there is no right of appeal. Further, as a registered member the Appellant does not fall within the class of persons who may appeal under column 2.
  10. Failure to comply with the Respondent's statutory objectives set out in Section 14 of the Act is not a matter that can be appealed to this Tribunal.
  11. The evidence of misconduct and mismanagement and the exhaustion of internal and alternative remedies does not confer jurisdiction and there is no right of appeal to this Tribunal in this connection.
  12. On 16 April 2025, the Appellant wrote to the Tribunal asking that the decision of Registrar Bamawo be reconsidered by the judge. Although the Appellant asked for reconsideration under rule 37(1), this rule relates to the approval of consent orders and is not relevant here. I have therefore treated the Appellant's application as one for reconsideration of a Registrar's decision under Rule 4(3) instead.
  13. The legal framework

    The Charities Act 2011

  14. Section 319 of the Act provides that except in the case of a reviewable matter (see section 322) an appeal may be brought to the Tribunal against any decision, direction or order mentioned in column 1 of Schedule 6. It may be brought by the Attorney General or any person specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of Schedule 6.
  15. Schedule 6 of the Act sets out the decisions, directions and orders which may give rise to a right of appeal together with who may appeal them and what the Tribunal's powers are on each such appeal. The principal ones which are identified as relevant by the Appellant in his email dated 10 December 2024 are as follows:
  16. Decisions of the Commission to institute an inquiry under section 16 with regard to a particular institution or a class of institutions.
  17. 15. Orders made by the commission under section 76(3) in relation to a charity and decisions to discharge or not to discharge such an order after review under section 76(6). These are orders and decisions to suspend trustees and make orders in relation to the administration and property of a charity following institution of an inquiry under section 46;
  18. Orders made by the Commission under section 79(2) in relation to a charity. These are orders to suspend trustees from membership of a charity where a suspension order has been made under section 76(3).
  19. The Appellant also seeks to rely on the following sections of the Act:
  20. Section 14, which sets out the Respondent's statutory objectives of public confidence, public benefit, compliance, charitable resources and accountability.
  21. Section 115 deals with the right to take charity proceedings in any court in England or Wales under the court's jurisdiction with respect to charities. Such proceedings cannot be taken unless authorised by the Respondent under section 115(2).
  22. Discussion and conclusions

  23. I agree with Registrar Bamawo's decision that the email from the Respondent dated 24 September 2024 was not a decision, direction or order within the meaning of section 319 of the Act. The email stated that the Appellant had not made an application for consent to take charity proceedings under section 115 of the Act, so the Respondent could not consider this. It also stated that "there is no role for us" in relation to a long dispute within the charity where dispute resolving processes have not been followed accurately. I therefore consider that on its face it is clear that the Respondent is not making a direction, decision or order in this email.
  24. Even if I am wrong on this, in order for it to have been such a decision, direction or order giving rise to an appeal to the Tribunal, it must be set out in Schedule 6 of the Act. The provisions on which the Respondent stated it wishes to rely in Schedule 6 were all decisions or orders which do not apply in the circumstances of this case. In particular:
  25. Section 46 will not apply because there has been no decision to institute a statutory inquiry, as the only right of appeal arises against a positive decision to do so. Even if there had been such a decision, as a registered member the Appellant does not fall within the class of persons who may appeal under column 2.
  26. Sections 76 will not apply because this is only available following institution of an inquiry under section 46, whereas no such inquiry has been commenced; and
  27. Section 79 will not apply because this is only available following institution of an inquiry under section 46 and a suspension order under section 76, whereas neither of these has happened.
  28. I therefore do not consider that the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that the email dated 24 September 2024 was not a decision, action or order within the meaning of section 319.
  29. I agree with Registrar Bamawo that the Act does not provide for there to be an appeal to this Tribunal in relation to either section 14 or section 115. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to deal with these aspects of the Appellant's appeal.
  30. I also agree with Registrar Bamawo that the allegations of misconduct and mismanagement and the fact that other remedies have been exhausted is not sufficient by itself to confer jurisdiction on this Tribunal. Parliament has provided a clearly defined and limited jurisdiction for this Tribunal to deal with appeals relating to the Charities Act 2011 and this does not taking action on the basis of such allegations.
  31. For all these reasons, I do not consider that the Tribunal erred in law in determining that the matter should be summarily struck out under Rule 8(2)(a). This rule, which is the prescribed procedure for this chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, provides that "The Tribunal must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if the Tribunal—(a) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them". Registrar Bamawo acted, in my view, correctly and in accordance with the relevant procedural rule in striking out the appeal summarily for want of jurisdiction.
  32. I also consider that Registrar Bamawo did not err in law in refusing to exercise the power under rule 5(3)(k)(i) to transfer to another court or tribunal. It is unclear from the Appellant's grounds of appeal exactly where rights of appeal, if any, may lie in relation to the matters complained about, and it is not the role of the Tribunal to advise on this. In any event, the consent of the Respondent is required to pursue charity proceedings before a court in accordance with section 115 and it is for the Appellant to seek this, not for the Tribunal.
  33. I therefore agree with and uphold Registrar Bamawo's decision dated 28 March 2025 in its entirety.
  34. Signed: Judge Harris

    Date: 17 June 2025

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010