The Charity Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by charity Legal Action against a Charity Commission decision to open a statutory inquiry into its activities.
The Commission opened a statutory inquiry in August last year into the charity, which has the working name Charles Henry, after it did not comply with a previous plan to address a number of problems with its activities.
In a statement released in October 2014, the Commission said it had: “monitored compliance and identified that the charity has failed to make a satisfactory response to its findings and conclusions and has not implemented or agreed to implement the action plan.”
Legal Action appealed against the Commission decision in December last year, but as this was more than 42 days after the charity was notified of the opening of the inquiry, the Commission argued the appeal should not be allowed.
Legal Action claimed its late appeal was because it had not been properly notified of the opening of the inquiry by the Charity Commission.
Judge Alison McKenna, president of the First-Tier Tribunal, ruled on February 16 that while there had been delays in the charity receiving the notice of an inquiry, this was largely the charity's fault, and that it was "the author of its own misfortune".
She said she would not give it leave to appeal, and that the charity cannot appeal again.
The Commission also claimed the charity's appeal was not valid because Kevin Gregory, one of the two representatives who signed Legal Action’s notice of application, is also currently “barred from conducting legal proceedings” due to his making “vexatious legal proceedings”.
Judge McKenna ruled that, despite Mr Gregory being barred, she was “not persuaded that the charity is barred by the order from issuing proceedings in this Tribunal” and refused the commission’s submission to strike out the appeal on these grounds.
Gregory is also a trustee of a seperate charity under investigation by the commission.
McKenna ruled that Legal Action was ultimately at fault for the delays, as it failed “to be open and straightforward with its regulator about its operating address”, which “was a significant factor in the delay which occurred between the Respondent’s first attempt to write to it on 30 September and its receipt of notice on 13 October.”
“I consider that the charity has to a large extent been the author of its own misfortune in this regard,” she wrote in her ruling. “I do not consider that it would be appropriate to extend time to allow this application to proceed out of time and I now refuse the charity’s application.”
