Dr Mohammad Emranul Haque v Mr Musleh Faradhi (sued on behalf of himself and all other Members of the Muslim Community Association)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Choudhury |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1135 (KB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-000707 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
[2023] EWHC 1135 (KB)
Mr Justice Choudhury
Case No: QB-2021-000707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand,
WC2A 2LL
Mr B Cawsey (instructed by ASR Solicitors) for the Claimants
Mr W McCormick KC (instructed by Carter Ruck) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 28 February to 7 March 2023
Approved Judgment
Introduction
The Claimants and the named Defendants were members of the Muslim Community Association (“ MCA”). The MCA was a faith-based community organisation that sought to uphold Islamic principles through education and community service. It had many hundreds of members across the country who met and engaged regularly. Prior to March 2021, the MCA had unincorporated status, but it now exists as an incorporated body. That incorporated body, the Muslim Community Association Limited (“ MCA Limited”), is the Third Defendant.
The Claimants were considered to have engaged in conduct contrary to the MCA's constitution (“ the Constitution”). In the First Claimant's case, the impugned conduct occurred in the course of a meeting in July 2020 of the MCA's elected governing body, the Shoora (or Consultative) Council (“ the Shoora”) of which he was a member (“ the July 2020 meeting”). As this was during the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting was conducted remotely via Teams. The conduct comprised the use of offensive language about other members of the Shoora. In the Second Claimant's case, the conduct comprised the writing of offensive emails in September 2020 to the MCA's Central President, at that time the First Defendant. The Claimants were separately suspended from the MCA and each of their memberships subsequently terminated by the Shoora, ostensibly on the grounds of such conduct. The Claimants contend, however, that their suspensions and/or terminations were unlawful and implemented for the improper motive of suppressing complaints by the Claimants about electoral malpractice in breach of the MCA's constitution in respect of the 2019 election of the Shoora. The Claimants say that such malpractice rendered the election of the Shoora invalid and, thus, the decisions to terminate the First Claimant's membership and to suspend that of the Second Claimant void and of no effect. Alternatively, it is said that those decisions were in breach of the Constitution and/or the principles of natural justice. They seek injunctive relief to reinstate them as members. They also seek declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract.
Procedural background
Proceedings were first issued in 2021. The Claimants issued an amended Claim Form and Amended Particulars of Claim on 14 March 2022. On 12 April 2022, the Defendants served their Amended Defence and a Part 18 Request for further information. The Claimants served their Reply to the Part 18 Request and the Amended Defence on 10 May 2022. Following standard disclosure, witness statements were exchanged on 16 December 2022.
The Defendants applied to have sections of each of the Claimants' witness statements and the entirety of a third party's witness statement served on the Claimants' behalf struck out on the grounds that they amounted to an abuse of process in that they contained information and allegations that were irrelevant to the pleaded case. HHJ Simpkiss acceded to the Defendants' application on 31 January 2023 and struck out the impugned evidence. The Claimants were also ordered to pay the Defendants' cost of the application on the indemnity basis, which were summarily assessed at £40,300. Those costs had not been paid within the default 14-day period or by the first day of trial. In the week before trial, the Claimants applied to vary or set aside HHJ Simpkiss' Order, and the Defendants made an application to strike-out the claim for non-compliance with the Order. I considered both applications at the outset of the trial. The Claimants' application to set aside or vary was refused, there being no change of circumstances since the making of HHJ Simpkiss' Order that would warrant such variation. Upon inquiry, the Claimants indicated through Counsel that the reason for non-payment was their lack of means, although I note that the Claimants had been able to pay a similar sum for legal representation to resist the Defendants' application.
In respect of the Defendants' application for immediate strike out for non-compliance, I made an ‘unless order’ that the claim would be struck out unless the Claimants paid £20,000 to the Defendants' solicitors within two days of the first day of trial and the remaining balance within 14 days. I also ordered that the Claimants provide evidence of their means to the Court, which they did. Those sums have (as I understand it) been duly paid. Accordingly, the claim was not struck out and the trial proceeded to conclusion. My rulings in respect of those preliminary matters are the subject of a separate transcript.
Witnesses
The nature of the dispute is such that there is not much in the way of disputed fact: much of the evidence focused on the interpretation of agreed facts, but there are a few disputed matters on which I must make a finding. The evidence focused on electoral campaigning in the lead up to the October 2019 elections, a report by a committee investigating electoral malpractice that made findings against several witnesses in these proceedings, and the phone call made by the First Claimant during a break in the course of the July 2020 meeting that was overheard by others and which was recorded. This is set out more fully at paragraphs 22 to 55.
Claimants' Witnesses
Both Claimants gave evidence in support of their claims. Their statements were prepared without the assistance of Solicitors, which probably explains why parts of them were considered by HHJ Simpkiss to be irrelevant and struck out. The parts that remained often strayed from assertions of fact to expressions of opinion and the ascribing of motives to the Defendants' actions. Their statements were not therefore as helpful as they might have been. It was clear from the oral evidence given by the First Claimant, Dr Emranul Haque, that he was — and remains — distressed and highly aggrieved by the events that gave rise to this claim and that he perceives his suspension and termination as deeply unfair. Nonetheless, some parts of his evidence were unsatisfactory and contradictory. The Defendants' criticism that he sought to explain documents that contradicted his own account with immaterial semantic distinctions and unsubstantiated allegations of forgery and fabrication is largely fair: e.g. (as will be seen below) he disputed the accuracy of minutes of Shoora meetings for the first time in oral evidence, and he adamantly clung to glosses on his own words that could not withstand scrutiny.
The Second Claimant, Mr Mezanur Rashid, was the next witness. Again, I do not doubt the sincerity of the anguish and discontent that he expressed. Yet this same passion often obscured his evidence, which was marked by interpretations of documents that were plainly unwarranted, claims of having no recollection of matters that he had given evidence on in his witness statement, or, failing that, argumentative and belligerent general assertions about the governance of the MCA. This adversely affected his credibility.
The other live witnesses for the Claimants were Mr Mohiuddin Ahmed and Mr Mohammad Malik, who gave evidence on alleged electoral malpractice in the lead up to the 2019 election. Although each claimed to have prepared his own statement without input or assistance from others (save that Mr Malik said that his children may have reviewed his witness statement and corrected some of the language), there were striking similarities between their statements and a near identical paragraph common to both that strongly suggested otherwise. The paragraph common to both statements provided that the Second Claimant's membership was suspended and terminated on a false pretext and that remaining members were threatened with disciplinary proceedings and termination of membership if they were found to be supporting either of the Claimants. It was put to them and to the Second Claimant that they had cooperated to produce the witness statements, which all three denied. Neither Mr Malik nor Mr Ahmed proffered any explanation for the similarities. Both Mr Ahmed and Mr Malik requested the assistance of a Bengali language interpreter although it was apparent that both witnesses largely appeared to have understood questions put to them in English and were able to answer in English with only occasional recourse to the interpreter for clarification. The Defendants submitted that the circumstances in which their evidence was prepared were deeply suspect and that it should be dismissed altogether as a result. In my judgment, the strong likelihood is that the statements (or at least parts of them) were either prepared jointly with each other or that they were prepared by another and approved by them. It is not plausible that statements containing near-identical paragraphs could have been prepared independently. The witnesses' flat refusal to acknowledge the obvious, namely that the statements were prepared jointly or by or with the assistance of another, does tend to undermine their credibility. However, given that neither witness seeks to give direct testimony relating to the July 2020 meeting and that their evidence largely comprises commentary and opinion, the deficiencies in their evidence have...
To continue reading
Request your trial