Big Help Project & Anor v Charity Commission

(2) Big Help Trading Company Respondent: Charity Commission Case Management Decision (The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009)

1. These appeals were consolidated by Case Management Directions dated 27 February 2025.

2. The Appellant, Big Help Trading Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Appellant, Big Help Project.

3. Many Case Management Directions were issued to the parties and, in particular, to the Appellants, and each of them.

4. The Appellants were directed by a judge on 19 June 2025 to serve any witness statements upon which they intended to rely upon the hearing of these appeals, by 27 June 2025, or to confirm that they did not intend to serve witness statements.

5. The Appellants failed to comply. However, a person, on behalf of one of the Appellants, on 30 June 2025, by email, not by filing the requisite GRC5 Form, requested an extension of time to file Witness Statements to 4 July 2025. No Witness Statements were filed by the Appellants, by that date, in any event.

6. These consolidated appeals had been listed for hearing together on 18 July 2025, but this date was vacated by a judge on 7 April 2025 to seek clarification whether one of the Appellants, Big Help Trading Company, was proceeding with its appeal since the sole trustee and director of that charitable company had left the company, but, subject to obtaining such clarification directed to be provided within 7 days, that these appeals be listed for a four-day hearing.

7. In further Directions dated 16 May 2025 issued by a judge, it was directed that the four-day hearing of these appeals would be by CVP (a direction confirmed by a judge in a Legal Outcome Review on 16 May 2025) but not before 4 August 2025. Various other Directions for hearing were issued to both parties and that a Compliance Hearing take place on, by CVP, on 24 July 2025. In respect of the Appellants, they were advised that if they failed to attend that Compliance Hearing, their appeals may be struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of the Rules.

8. In yet further Directions issued by a judge dated 19 June 2025, the Appellants were directed to serve their Witness Statements, if any, and any additional evidence upon which they intended to rely, on the Respondent and on the Tribunal by 27 June 2025 or confirm that not be relying upon witness evidence, failing which, again, the Tribunal may strike out these appeals, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of the Rules. The Appellants failed to comply.

9. The Appellants did not attend the Compliance Hearing on 24 July 2025 and had made no contact with the Tribunal. The Respondent submitted an application to strike out the appeals, copied to the Appellants, for their failure to comply with Directions of the Tribunal.

10. The last contact made by the Appellants with the Tribunal had been by email dated 11 April 2025 stating that they wished to continue with their appeals, but made no representations as to why these appeals should not be struck out.

11. The Appellants were directed, following the said Compliance Hearing, to make any representations, if they wished, as to why these appeals should be stuck out, by 1 August 2025, in default of which the appeals may be struck out without further direction. They were reminded of their duty to co-operate and given liberty to apply for reconsideration of the directions by a judge within 14 days in writing. The Appellants failed, again, to comply.

12. In its application dated 21 July 2025, the Respondent applied to have the appeals struck out, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of the Rules for non-compliance by the Appellants with directions issued by the Tribunal, or pursuant to Rule 8(3)(b) for non-cooperation, or pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Respondent further submitted that both appeals were identical and advanced only one ground of appeal, namely, that the Respondent had relied on a Witness Statement in ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The Respondent submitted that this witness statement had been considered but was not relied upon by it in these appeals. Moreover, the Respondent submitted, its case that there had been misconduct, mismanagement and a risk to Charity property was not disputed or challenged by the Appellants in their appeals; that the Appellants had served no witness statements nor any documents in support of their appeals; that the Bankruptcy Court had concluded, as fact, that the Charity (-ies) had failed to pay over £17 Millon to property owners yet the Charity (-ies) bank account balance at October 2024 was only £2,871.53 and, finally, that the Orders challenged in the appeals were temporary in nature and had to be reviewed periodically, providing a new right of appeal on every review: accordingly, if the appeals were struck out, no prejudice would be suffered by the Appellants as a new right of appeal would arise should a review decide not to discharge the impugned Orders.

13. The Appellants did not comply with or correspond in connection with any of these procedural matters and Tribunal directions (save to the very limited, but procedurally incorrect, manner previously outlined).

14. These appeals, and each of them, are stuck out, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a), (b) and (c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (‘the Rules’) as the Appellants failed to comply with Tribunal Directions as outlined above, have failed to co-operate and there is no reasonable prospect of the appeals, or either of them, being successful, and have continued to fail to comply to date. The Appellants made no representations as to why these appeals, and each of them, should not be struck out. Signed: Judge McMahon Date: 7 November 2025