The court found litigation was not in the charity’s interests and risked depleting its funds
Permission for charity proceedings has been refused by the High Court to two members seeking to challenge their expulsion from a mosque in South Bank, Middlesbrough.
HH Judge Davis-White KC, sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division, dismissed the application by Mirja Shahriar Ahmed and Sabbir Miah in a judgment handed down on 19 August 2026.
The claim concerned the Tees Valley Islamic and Cultural Association (TVICA), an unincorporated charity registered with the Charity Commission. The charity operates the Masjid-E-Nomira at 44-46 Middlesborough Road, South Bank, Middlesbrough.
The dispute followed an altercation at the mosque after Friday prayers on 28 April 2023. The two claimants, together with seven others, were suspended from entering the mosque on 2 May 2023. While the suspensions of seven people were later lifted, Ahmed and Miah were expelled from membership of the charity following a disciplinary meeting on 15 January 2024.
The claimants argued, among other matters, that the charity had not followed its constitution when suspending and terminating their memberships. They also alleged that decisions concerning their suspension and expulsion were not properly taken in the charity’s interests and involved breaches of fiduciary duty.
Because the proposed proceedings concerned the internal administration or domestic affairs of a charity, they required authorisation under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011. The Charity Commission had refused to make an order authorising the proceedings in September 2025, leading the claimants to seek permission from the High Court.
The judgment confirms that the court’s task under section 115 is not simply to decide whether the proposed claim is legally arguable. The court must consider whether litigation is in the interests of the charity as a whole.
The judge found that the claimants had standing and that there was a viable claim that could be properly pleaded. However, he was not satisfied that the proposed litigation would benefit the charity.
A significant factor was the likely financial impact. The Charity Commission had previously raised concerns that litigation could severely deplete charitable assets. Although the claimants had estimated their own costs at about £16,530, the judge rejected the suggestion that the proceedings could realistically be confined to that level.
The court considered that the allegations about improper motives and the circumstances surrounding the expulsions would require examination of earlier alleged misconduct, the 2023 altercation and the subsequent conduct of the executive committee. Counsel agreed that a trial would likely take at least four to five days. The judge considered that costs on each side could be around £50,000, with the defendants suggesting they might be twice that amount.
The charity had limited cash or liquid resources. Its accounts showed total funds of £72,238 for the year ending 5 April 2023, £80,082 for 2024 and £81,147 for 2025. Net cash resources after current creditors were just over £14,000 in 2025.
The judge also rejected the argument that wider governance concerns justified allowing the litigation to proceed. Evidence about possible procedural problems within the charity could have been raised with the Charity Commission, while changes to the executive committee following elections meant there was no evidence of continuing widespread dissatisfaction affecting the charity’s governance.
He concluded that there was no demonstrated benefit to the charity from the proposed proceedings and that its financial position meant permission should not be granted.
The court therefore refused permission under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011. It also found it unnecessary to decide whether the claimants should receive an extension of time to make their application. The judge said that, even if permission had otherwise been appropriate, he would have refused an extension because of the procedural history, unexplained or partly explained delays and the time already taken up by the proceedings.
Following circulation of the draft judgment, the parties agreed that the claimants should pay the defendants’ costs, to be summarily assessed if not agreed. The claim was dismissed.