London Borough of Brent v Johnson [2020] EWHC 933 (Ch) (29 April 2020)

London Borough of Brent v Johnson [2020] EWHC 933 (Ch) (29 April 2020)

The appeal is allowed because the charitable trust argument should not be struck out solely due to the Attorney General's non-joinder when the Attorney General's substantive stance is unknown; the proper course is to join the Attorney General as a defendant, allowing the argument to proceed unless and until the Attorney General opposes the existence of the charitable trust.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 933 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent; Defendant/appellant: Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a trustee of 'Harlesden Peoples Community Council'); Defendant/appellant: Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Orders of Deputy Master Rhys (21 March 2019) and Master Clark (13 September 2019)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Standing in Charitable Trust Claims, Role of Attorney General in Charity Proceedings, Strike Out Applications, Declaratory Relief, Multiplicity of Proceedings
Charity Law Property Law Civil Procedure Standing in Charitable Trust Claims Role of Attorney General in Charity Proceedings Strike Out Applications Declaratory Relief Multiplicity of Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent

Claimant/respondent

Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a trustee of 'Harlesden Peoples Community Council')

Defendant/appellant

Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Orders of Deputy Master Rhys (21 March 2019) and Master Clark (13 September 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether only the Attorney General has standing to advance a charitable trust argument adverse to the legal owner of property
  2. 2 Whether the charitable trust argument should be struck out when the Attorney General declines to join the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether exceptions to the Attorney General's exclusive standing exist

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the charitable trust argument should not be struck out solely due to the Attorney General's non-joinder when the Attorney General's substantive stance is unknown; the proper course is to join the Attorney General as a defendant, allowing the argument to proceed unless and until the Attorney General opposes the existence of the charitable trust.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order to join the Attorney General as a defendant to the proceedings.
  • Charitable trust argument not struck out at this stage; to proceed to trial unless the Attorney General opposes.