Chrome Residential Limited v Charity Commission

The Respondent issued a decision dated 17 March 2025 to the Appellant requiring the Appellant to comply with the contents of an enclosed Order of that date issued pursuant to section 84 of the Charities Act 2011, as amended, (power to direct a person to take certain actions) by taking the stated certain actions (‘the Decision’).

The Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal against the Decision on 8 July 2025. This was outside the 42 day time limit for so doing, that expired on 28 Apil 2025. The Appellant clearly accepted the appeal was late and appeared to purport to offer reasons for that in section 7 of its Notice of Appeal, namely, it appears, that the Appellant believed the Respondent would not enforce the said section 84 Order and would make a section 47 Direction instead (to obtain evidence in connection with the statutory inquiry opened by the Respondent into Big Help Project (hereafter ‘the Charity’).

The Respondent did, contrary to the Appellant’s assertions, issue a section 47 Direction on 25 April 2025 to Mr. Zuber Ahmed, a director of the Appellant, and a further section 47 Direction (that superseded the sad section 47 Direction issued on 25 April 2025) direct to the Appellant itself on 22 May 2025.

At no stage did either the section 84 Order, or the section 47 Direction of 22 May 2025, cease to be operative and valid.

It is always open to a party to apply, in writing, to the Tribunal, using Form GRC5 to seek an extension, if granted, to any statutory time limit. No such application was made and, indeed, in its said Notice of Appeal, the Appellant expressly stated that it had no applications to make to the Tribunal.

The Appellant, in bringing its appeal sought only that the said section 84 Order not be enforced; that it be ‘set aside’ and costs awarded to the Appellant.

This appeal is dismissed as being out of time, that is, the Notice of Appeal was not submitted within the statutory time period of 42 days (that is, by 28 April 2025) from the date of the Decision (17 March 2025) and no application to extend time having been granted by the Tribunal, nor was any application made by the Appellant to extend time.

The Decision remains valid and the section 84 Order is enforceable by the Respondent, including the potential sanctions that might be brought by the Respondent against the Appellant in the event of the Appellant not complying with the requirements of the said Order.