Syed Aminul Haque (representative/member of Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan unincorporated association) v Altaf Hussain & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 806
Syed Aminul Haque v Altaf Hussain & Ors.
13 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 502 (Ch)
High Court
Imagine a club with a house. Some members say other members stole money from the club and want them kicked out. The accused members say the accusers cheated to get control of the club. The judge said the argument about who cheated is separate from whether money was stolen. The judge will now decide if the accused members should lose the house.
Key Facts
- •Six properties in the UK, plus proceeds from a seventh, are held in trust for the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), a Pakistani political party.
- •Syed Aminul Haque, representing Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan (MQMP), claims the current trustees misappropriated assets and seeks their removal.
- •The dispute centers on whether MQMP is a separate entity or a name change of MQM, and whether actions taken after a controversial 2016 speech by MQM's founder, Altaf Hussain, were constitutional.
- •The case was split into two stages: the first to decide constitutional issues, the second to address trustee removal and breach of trust.
- •The Defendants, acting as trustees, raised constitutional issues about the legitimacy of MQMP's actions, potentially creating a conflict of interest.
Legal Principles
Trustees have a duty of neutrality between beneficiaries.
Fielden v Christie-Millar [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch)
The jurisdiction to remove trustees considers the best interests of the beneficiaries, not just proving a cause of action.
Schumacher v Clarke [2019] EWHC 1031
Trustees cannot use their position to advance their personal interests.
Judgement itself
Outcomes
MQMP is MQM, with only a name change.
Overwhelming evidence shows MQMP continued MQM's operations under amended constitutions, without forming a separate entity.
It was not established that the 2015 Constitution was adopted.
Lack of documentary evidence and conflicting witness testimonies outweigh the evidence presented by the defendants.
A further hearing on the MQM Constitutional Issue is unnecessary.
Even if the 2016 constitutional amendments were unlawful, they were superseded by subsequent events and do not impact the breach of trust claim.
The second stage of the trial should proceed.
To determine whether the relief sought by Haque against the trustees should be granted.