Jack Sparrow, Rosemary Carne and Nigel Websper v Charity Commission for England & Wales

Jack Sparrow, Rosemary Carne and Nigel Websper v Charity Commission for England & Wales

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, holding that the draft Scheme as amended (including changes to clauses 2.3 and 5.3.1) was appropriate, proportionate, and compliant with the Upper Tribunal's decision and charity law. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revisit matters settled by the Upper Tribunal or to impose further restrictions not permitted by law.

Parties
First Appellant: Jack Sparrow; Second Appellant: Rosemary Carne; Third Appellant: Nigel Websper; First Respondent: The Charity Commission for England and Wales; Second Respondent: The Trustees of Bath Recreation Ground (Stephen Baddeley, Elizabeth Bloor, Derwent Campbell, David Dixon, David Durdan, Don Early, Simon Emery, Geoffrey Fairclough, Michael Laughton)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Charity Tribunal Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Rehearing After Upper Tribunal Remittal
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part
Legal Topics
Charity Schemes, Trustee Powers, Charitable Objects, Administrative Provisions, Cy Pres Doctrine
Charity Law Trusts Charity Schemes Trustee Powers Charitable Objects Administrative Provisions Cy Pres Doctrine

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Sparrow

First Appellant

Rosemary Carne

Second Appellant

Nigel Websper

Third Appellant

The Charity Commission for England and Wales

First Respondent

The Trustees of Bath Recreation Ground (Stephen Baddeley, Elizabeth Bloor, Derwent Campbell, David Dixon, David Durdan, Don Early, Simon Emery, Geoffrey Fairclough, Michael Laughton)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Charity Tribunal Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Rehearing After Upper Tribunal Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the draft Scheme for Bath Recreation Ground Trust complies with the Upper Tribunal's decision and charity law
  2. 2 Whether the trustees' powers and restrictions are appropriate and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the objects of the Charity can be amended or are cy pres provisions triggered

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, holding that the draft Scheme as amended (including changes to clauses 2.3 and 5.3.1) was appropriate, proportionate, and compliant with the Upper Tribunal's decision and charity law. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revisit matters settled by the Upper Tribunal or to impose further restrictions not permitted by law.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part

Orders

  • The amended Scheme for Bath Recreation Ground Trust shall take effect as of 14 December 2016.