Vladimir Ioannou v The Charity Commission for England and Wales
[2023] UKFTT 306 (GRC)
Kristine Lovelady v Charity Commission for England and Wales
8 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 282 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A charity trustee was removed from their position because they misused charity money, didn't follow rules, and gave false information. A court agreed with the removal, saying the trustee's actions were serious enough to warrant dismissal.
Key Facts
- •Kristine Lovelady (Appellant) appealed a Removal Order from the Charity Commission for England and Wales (Respondent) removing her as a trustee of Muffin Pug Rescue.
- •The Removal Order was based on allegations of failing to file accounts, non-compliance with directions, personal benefit from charity assets, improper payments to trustees, breach of governing documents, and providing misleading information.
- •The Appellant was unrepresented and appeared on her own behalf.
- •The Tribunal considered the appeal de novo, assessing the evidence and submissions from both parties.
- •The Appellant's evidence was deemed inconsistent and contradictory.
- •The Tribunal found that the Appellant was primarily responsible for the misconduct and mismanagement of the charity.
- •The Appellant failed to understand her roles and responsibilities as a trustee, demonstrating a disregard for charity law.
- •The Appellant used charity funds for personal items without proper authorization and failed to separate personal and charity expenditure.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal determines appeals against removal orders afresh, considering the balance of probabilities on the evidence before it.
Charities Act 2011, sections 319 and Schedule 6
A Removal Order can be made under sections 76 and 79 of the Charities Act 2011 if a trustee is responsible for misconduct or mismanagement, or if their conduct contributed to or facilitated it, and such action is proportionate.
Charities Act 2011, sections 76 and 79
'Misconduct' includes acts or failures to act that are criminal, unlawful, or improper, while 'mismanagement' includes acts or failures that misuse resources or put beneficiaries at risk.
Charity Commission Guidance (following Mountstar (PCT) v. Charity Commission and Scargill v. Charity Commission)
The Tribunal must consider proportionality in deciding whether to make a Removal Order, balancing the risk to the charity and its reputation.
Charities Act 2011 (implied)
The Tribunal must consider the Charity Commission's statutory objectives (public confidence, compliance, charitable resources, accountability).
Charities Act 2011, sections 14-16
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; Removal Order upheld.
The Tribunal found that the statutory criteria for a Removal Order were met and that the order was proportionate. The Appellant's conduct demonstrated misconduct and mismanagement, putting the charity at significant financial and reputational risk.
Similar Cases
Suzanne Goodband v The Charity Commission for England and Wales
[2024] UKFTT 111 (GRC)
Darren Anthony Wilson v Charity Commission for England and Wales
[2023] UKFTT 562 (GRC)
Declan Poole v The Charity Commission for England and Wales
[2023] UKFTT 1083 (GRC)
Enus Ali & Anor v Muhammad Modu Miah & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1818 (Ch)