Alexandru Guzun & Ors v Charity Commission for England and Wales
[2024] UKFTT 310 (GRC)
Fundamental Freedom Limited v Charity Commission for England and Wales
17 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 311 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A group wanted to be a charity to promote human rights but the court found their main goal was actually to win a political fight and get money from the US. Because their actions could harm public trust instead of helping it, they weren't allowed to be a charity.
Key Facts
- •Charity Fundamental Freedom Limited appealed the Charity Commission's refusal to register it as a charity.
- •The institution's objects were to promote human rights, similar to those found charitable in the Human Dignity Trust case.
- •The Commission refused registration, citing concerns that the institution's purposes were not exclusively charitable and for the public benefit.
- •The appeal was heard remotely and considered extensive written and oral evidence.
- •The institution's CEO's testimony revealed a focus on COVID-19 related litigation and potential ICC involvement, raising concerns about political objectives.
- •The institution had previously been refused registration five times for various reasons.
Legal Principles
An institution must be established for charitable purposes only and be subject to the High Court's jurisdiction regarding charities (Charities Act 2011, s. 1(1)).
Charities Act 2011, s. 1(1)
A charitable purpose must fall within section 3(1) of the Act and be for the public benefit (Charities Act 2011, s. 2(1)).
Charities Act 2011, s. 2(1)
The Tribunal must consider the institution's purposes afresh, not review the Commission's decision-making process (Charities Act 2011, s. 319(4)(a)).
Charities Act 2011, s. 319(4)(a)
The Tribunal may consider evidence not before the Commission (Charities Act 2011, s. 319(4)(b)).
Charities Act 2011, s. 319(4)(b)
In determining whether an institution's objects are charitable, the court may examine its activities to ascertain whether the implementation of its objects would achieve a charitable end result (Helena Partnerships Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] EWCA Civ. 569).
Helena Partnerships Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] EWCA Civ. 569
The meaning of 'established' in the Act refers to the institution's initial purpose, not subsequent activities (Independent Schools Council v. Charity Commission for England and Wales [2012] Ch 214).
Independent Schools Council v. Charity Commission for England and Wales [2012] Ch 214
'Public benefit' requires consideration of whether the purpose itself benefits the community and whether those who benefit are sufficiently numerous to constitute a section of the public (Independent Schools Council v. Charity Commission for England and Wales [2012] Ch 214).
Independent Schools Council v. Charity Commission for England and Wales [2012] Ch 214
If an institution's objects include non-charitable purposes, such as a political purpose, it cannot be granted charitable status (McGovern).
McGovern
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the institution's primary purpose was political litigation, primarily aimed at accessing US funding. The evidence did not satisfy the public benefit criterion; the institution's activities could foster public mistrust rather than benefit.
Similar Cases
Imran Haidar v Charity Commission for England & Wales
[2024] UKFTT 530 (GRC)
Scolt Head and District Common Rightsholders Association v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 1037 (GRC)
Mark Watts v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 647 (GRC)
Mohammad Bhaiyat, as a trustee on behalf of Olive Grove Foundation v The Charity Commission for England and Wales
[2023] UKFTT 307 (GRC)