Court excludes six from Stepney mosque

The trustees of a ‘portakabin’ mosque in Stepney have succeeded in excluding six worshippers from their premises but have racked-up a £100,000 legal bill in doing so.


The bill is being paid using £600,000 of funds raised to build a new mosque.
Despite ordering the exclusions, High Court Judge Elizabeth Slade accepted that the mosque’s trustees could have initiated the legal action to silence legitimate complaints about how the mosque has been run.

But she said that the allegations made by the mosque’s trustees – that they were afraid of the defendants – should be treated as legitimate at least until they went to trial.

She said: “The claimants have established a serious issue to be tried in respect of the allegation of trespass against each of the respondents to these allegations. “

But she said: “In my judgement there is likely to be considerable factual dispute as to whether the trustees had cause (to exclude the defendants) or whether they did so for proper purposes. These factual issues will have to be resolved at a later hearing. At this stage I can’t resolve such factual disputes.”

She said: “The history of litigation between parties shows that there is considerable animosity between some directors and defendants.”

Her judgement included the witness statement of three mosque trustees who did not believe that their colleagues’ decision to take legal action was a legitimate or responsible use of mosque funds.

The ‘rebel’ trustees said: “We understand that the reason some trustees are seeking these exclusions is because they feel intimidated by their (the defendants) presence. It is our opinion that any intimidation does not result from the (defendants)

“The trustees are facing allegations of serious wrong doing… it’s our opinion that the matter has been referred to the Charity Commission it therefore seems to us that this (legal action) has more to do with the feelings of (the trustees)… to prevent freedom of expression.”

Judge Slade referred to the view of the ‘rebel’ trustees that the decision to take legal action: “shows how far they (the trustees) are prepared to go in the suppression of criticism of their allegations of wrong doing.“

In her judgement she said that she had weighed up a number of issues including a recent peaceful period at the mosque: “It may be that peace has been preserved because the trustees have stayed away.”

But decided that excluding the defendants was the fairest course until trial, saying that not to exclude them would be consenting to “continuing interference” in the activities of the trustees.

A trial is likely at the beginning of November.

The judge said: “It’s a serious matter to deprive the trespass defendants of access to their chosen place of worship. However, if relief were granted until trial, that would not deprive the trespass defendants of the ability to worship. There are other mosques in the area. It has not been suggested that they would be barred from attending these.

“Taking all these matters into account I grant interlocutory relief restraining defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 from entering or remaining on the specified premises until trial or further order.”

One of the key areas of concern raised by the judge during the hearing was the legitimacy of the trustees decision in revoking the licenses of the defendants to attend the mosque. It became clear during the hearing that the licences were revoked by the mosque’s solicitor, Peter Miller of Bowling & Co.

Also that Mr Miller had drawn up a resolution that was passed in an emergency board meeting at the mosque at 12.30am on August the 25th, designed to ratify his action to withdraw these licences.

Judge Slade said: “In my judgement, in the material before me, there are serious issues to be tried:

a) Whether the licences of the trespass defendants to be on the claimants land was revoked.
b) If so, when and by whom?
c) If by trustees whether they had good cause to do so and did so for proper purposes
d) If by an individual whether he had authority to do so.”

Another area of concern to the judge was what she had previously described as the “appalling” state of Bowling and Co’s provision of paperwork to the defendants’ legal team and to the court.

After Judge Slade’s judgement was read out in court there was a heated discussion about costs.

Previous reports:

Mosque dispute: legal paperwork "disgrace" and "appalling"

and

Is a mosque a corporation?

Mosque dispute: legal paperwork is "disgrace" and "appalling"

A Stepney mosque faces massive legal costs as its management committee attempts to exclude opponents from the premises.

The management of the Shah Jalal Mosque on Duckett Street in Stepney intends to sue the same worshippers for libel and has initiated further legal proceedings in order to take full control of the mosque's bank accounts. The potential costs could be enormous and put an end to the new mosque plans.

As the number of hearings and bundles of paperwork mount the defendants claim that the mosque has spent £90,000 of charity's £600,000 on its solicitors.

At the hearing on Tuesday a number of technical details were discussed.

The presiding Judge, Justice Elizabeth Slade heard the claimants’ case for excluding 11 worshippers. But the hearing was held up several times by inconsistent paperwork provided by the claimants’ Stratford-based solicitors Bowling and Co.

At one point in the hearing Judge Slade said: “This is a disgrace, that the documents haven’t been properly serviced and that counsel (for the defendants) is meant to be dealing with this case without the same documents that others are dealing with in court.”

The judge later described the situation as “an appalling state of affairs” and demanded that the claimants representatives get their paperwork in order. One of the claimants’ junior solicitors was asked to help the defendants’ barrister identify the documents the court was considering.

Both parties claimed to be trying to minimise costs.

A number of allegations have been made by both sides in the dispute. The claimants say that the 11 defendants have used violence, intimidation and defamation to take control of the mosque.

The allegations against the claimants include theft, fraud and having abused their positions of responsibility within the mosque.

One of the key issues concerning Judge Slade was that the claimants' case was not specific to each defendant: “I’m concerned about the lack of specificity even if the 25 July meeting is taken as authorised, the word ‘associates’ is an extremely broad term."

She asked the prosecution to provide individually identifiable evidence at the Wednesday hearing.

Both sides have consulted Muslim clerics to substantiate their claims about the use of the mosque.

At one point the Judge said: “Are you saying that members of the congregation who express a view that they have lost faith in those who are running the organisation warrants the banning of these individuals from the premises?"

Mr Cakebread, barrister for the claimants said: "No. If I’m inclined to take the view that my priest is not a good priest or the arch bishop of Canterbury (is not a good bishop), then I’m entitled to express that view.

"But am I entitled to go into that church and explain this view from the pulpit? My submission is that no, you are not and not entitled to put up notices that are highly defamatory of my priest or the ArchBishop of Canterbury.

“Members of the congregation are entitled to express their view but what we say is that they are not entitled to express their views inside the mosque."

Counsel for the defence, Mr Al Mustakim, pointed out that the mosque's imam, not its trustees was the equivalent to a priest.

He also said: “What in effect these trustees are trying to do is bypass the other 15 trustees on a point which is so fundamental it goes to the very heart of the purpose and function of the mosque. It goes against the teaching of the Koran which forbids people from excluding fellow worshippers in undertaking their prayer and flies in the face of what a mosque is all about."

A crowd of about forty people filled court five apparently in support of the defendants.

Previous report: Is a mosque a corporation?

Is a mosque a corporation? £90k legal battle to find out

A High Court hearing on Tuesday will decide whether the management committee of an East London mosque can exclude worshippers they don't like. This appears to be uncharted legal territory.

If the Shah Jalal mosque's management committee are allowed to exclude worshippers, the power will be based on UK corporate law rather than Sharia law.

This is the latest escalation in a bitter dispute over a cluster of prefabricated cabins on the Ocean Estate in Stepney, one of the UK's most impoverished communities. These cabins serve as the Shah Jalal Mosque.

Despite the poverty, worshippers managed to raise £900k in order to build a new mosque. But concern over the management of these funds flared into allegations of corruption and confrontation (East London Advertiser story from 2008).

In response the mosque management committee has hired lawyers to exclude its opponents. These lawyers have been paid with money that was collected to build the mosque - with £90,000 already spent on legal fees in less than a month.



The mosque's management committee claims that the Charity Commission is aware of its action. The Charity Commission would not comment on the case until it received a letter from a defendant yesterday. A spokesperson for the Charity Commission told Blood and Property: "The Charity Commission is aware of concerns about Stepney ShahJalal Mosque (charity number 1079423). We will now assess the concerns to establish what, if any, regulatory role there may be for the Commission."

In the most recent High Court hearing - Friday 6 August - Mrs Justice Nicola Davies refused to grant an order to exclude worshippers. She said she found a number of issues "unsatisfactory". These included the lack of legal representation for 8 of the 11 defendants and a lack of primary documentation. She was also not convinced that the split between the mosque's trustees over the expulsions was irrelevant, as had been claimed by the mosque's barrister, Mr Cakebread.

Judge Davies also expressed concern at charity money being spent and acknowledged the level of support for the defendants (the 11 who face expulsion from the mosque) - the court heard that the 20 to 30 mosque users present were there to support the defendants.

She was not swayed by the claimants argument that their decision to exclude worshippers was backed by law:

Cakebread: If argument has been put to court that there is a legal entitlement for people to (attend) then I’m not aware of it. It’s like barring someone from my house. It is the same, there’s nothing different about it.

The Judge pointed out that some of the mosques trustees supported the defendants.

Cakebread: It is irrelevant because it is a majority in company law, the majority of the company can make the decision.

Later in the hearing the Judge said: "A history where you clearly have dissenting trustees, I don’t just dismiss, as you have, as irrelevant…I can tell you I am not making the order you seek this afernoon."

A date of August 24 was set for the next hearing.

Here's a report of a court hearing on July 29th which covers some of the other issues being discussed: Mosque worshippers face £45,000 legal fee over management dispute.

A court has been told that £300,000 of the Shah Jalal Mosque’s cash had inexplicably disappeared, that official documents had been falsified, and that the Mosque’s treasurer was illegally removed from his post.

The presiding judge, Mr Justice Griffith Williams, commented on the seriousness of the allegations but said that he was not in a position to say whether or not they were true. However the allegations allowed him to revisit an earlier court order in which he had ordered the treasurer to unfreeze the Mosque’s bank accounts.

The judge said: “I can understand your claim. These are serious allegations and it seems to me that there are matters that should be litigated at the earliest possible opportunity. I’m not in any position to direct whether there’s any truth or otherwise in any of the allegations but if there is then clearly the defendant’s decision is understandable vis-à-vis the bank.”

After hearing the allegations he issued a new order giving instructions on how the mosque’s accounts should be handled during the management dispute. But this still included payment of a £35,000 legal bill of one side in the dispute.

Whether or not these legal fees should be paid by the mosque dominated the end of the hearing. Stratford-based Bowlings solicitors faced the prospect of not being paid after taking instructions from the allegedly corrupt Mosque management.

During the hearing Justice Griffiths Williams said that the £45,000 bill “does seem rather a lot of money” and pointed out that the claimant’s barrister had, at one stage in the hearing, said the bill was between £40-£45,000 and that Bowlings had then fixed it at £45,000.

The judge said: “It’s unseemly for lawyers to be arguing about fees and it is certainly not something with which a judge should be involved.”

At first the Judge was minded to unfreeze the mosque’s bank accounts and to exclude legal expenses from any future payments. Then, after arguments were made, a compromise was reached which saw £35,000 of the bill being paid from the mosque’s funds,