Are Proceedings Brought By A Charity Appropriate?

Bhamani and others v Sattar and others [2020]

In the case of Bhamani and others v Sattar and others, the Court was asked by the Defendant to consider whether it was properly arguable that the charity Claimant, which had started possession proceedings through its committee (rather than through the Trustees in possession of the property in question), had acted inappropriately by starting possession proceedings.

The presiding Judge in the case was presented with arguments revolving around two previous cases: Rendall v Blair (1890); and Watts v Stewart [2016].

Rendall v Blair

• Rendall is an ancient case where the Claimant, who was a school headmaster, sought to prevent his employer from terminating his employment by challenging their power to do so. He managed to restrain his employer at the Court of Appeal. It was decided that those proceedings were not ‘charity proceedings’ as the case revolved around the operation of a single employment contract and accordingly only marginally touched upon how the charity operated (for more information on ‘Charity Proceedings’ have a read of this blog).

Watts v Stewart

• In Watts, the Defendant was a licensee defending possession proceedings. One argument pursued was that the proceedings were Charity Proceedings. This argument was dismissed, as the Court found that the charity did not owe any duties to the Defendant.

These two cases however indicated to the Court that there was some support for allowing Defendants to defend on the basis that the actions of a charity Claimant may fall outside of the scope of what the charity can properly do. The Judge in Bhamani therefore allowed the Defendant to amend its defence to include such an argument and, in doing so, also confirmed that the proceedings would not be Charity Proceedings.

Comment

Whilst Bhamani has not reached a final trial and further it could be open to challenge by way of appeal, the fact that the Court has entertained the argument to the extent that it has allowed the Defendant to amend his defence to include such an argument may be seized upon by desperate Defendants that are being pursued by charities.