Newbury Park Masjid v Charity Commission for England & Wales

1. Mr. Muhammad Baha Uddin, purportedly on behalf of the Appellant, an incorporated charity, lodged an appeal on 28 August 2025, against a decision of the Respondent making an Order dated 7 August 2025 appointing an Interim Manager to act as Receiver and Manager in respect of the property and affairs of the Charity (“the Appellant”). However, the purported appeal did not specify any grounds of appeal (and was, therefore, an incomplete appeal) but was instead a detailed application by Mr. Uddin, on behalf of the Appellant, for an immediate stay of the appointment of the said Interim Manager.

2. Mr. Uddin, on 12 September 2025, made a second application (the “Second Application”) to stay these proceedings, grounded on the application being an application for interim relief, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (‘the Rules’).

3. In response to the Second Application, the Respondent on 15 September 2025 submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to stay an Order of the Respondent while an appeal was ending.

4. The Tribunal’s Registrar, by a case management direction and decision dated 18 September 2025, refused the Second Application because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant it.

5. The Respondent filed a Response dated 26 September 2025 to the purported appeal. In this, the Respondent submitted that Mr. Uddin had no standing to bring an appeal against the said Order on behalf of the Appellant without a decision to that effect of the Board of Trustees of the Appellant and the Interim Manager, but that he may bring an appeal as a beneficiary of the Appellant.

6. In response, Mr. Uddin, on 4 October 2025 stated, in writing, that he was bringing the appeal “with the full knowledge of, and on behalf of all the trustees of the Appellant”. However, no Minute of a meeting of the Board of Trustees and the Interim Manager to that effect was adduced by Mr. Uddin. The Tribunal therefore considered that this was insufficient to evidence that he had standing to bring the appeal on behalf of the Appellant.

7. By case management directions dated 22 October 2025, which were sent to the parties on 23 October 2025, Judge McMahon made the following directions, which are key for the purposes of this decision: a. Mr Uddin must with 14 days write to the Tribunal to clarify whether it is his intention to bring this appeal: i. on behalf of the Appellant, that is, the Charity, in which case he must send to the Tribunal (and the Respondent) a certified copy of the Minutes of a meeting of the Board of the Trustees of the Appellant, that included the Interim Manager, authorising an appeal being brought by Mr. Uddin on behalf of the Appellant (the corporate Charity) against the said decision of the Respondent appointing the said Interim Manager ii. on his own behalf, in which case he must set out in writing the capacity in which he considers he has the necessary standing to do so, by reference to the provisions contained within Schedule 6 to the Charities Act 2011 . b. subject to having sufficient standing to bring the appeal on his own or the Appellant’s behalf, Mr Uddin must within 14 days complete on form GRC1 the grounds of appeal and address any concerning whether the purported appeal may be out of time in those circumstances.

8. The Judge also made a number of consequential directions which were expressed to be subject to compliance with these requirements, covering matters such as submission of an amended Response, the provision of an interpreter, the number of witnesses, listing and the estimated length of hearing. The Appellant was asked to note that in the event of non-compliance with Directions of the Tribunal, in the case of the Appellant, the appeal may be struck out for non-compliance without further direction, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of the Rules.

9. The time for complying with the directions dated 22 October 2025 expired on 20 November 2025. No response has been received from Mr Uddin, whether in his personal capacity or on behalf of the Appellant.

10. Accordingly, the Tribunal is left with an incomplete appeal where the grounds of appeal have not yet been filed 107 days after the purported appeal was made and where the Tribunal has no certainty as to whether Mr Uddin has standing to bring the appeal either on his own behalf or on behalf of the Appellant. These are serious omissions, because without them there is arguably no Appellant and no reasons for the appeal, which, in practical terms, makes it impossible for the Tribunal to determine the appeal in its current form. No explanation has been provided as to the delay or failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. The Appellant was directed to note that failure to comply with the directions dated 22 October 2025 could lead to the Tribunal striking out the appeal for failure to comply without further direction.

11. The Appellant failed to comply with the Direction dated 22 October 2025 and accordingly there are grounds to strike out the appeal.