Donor Intentions and Charitable Trusts following Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others [2024] EWCA Civ 1247

A raft of recent judgments in 2025 concerning charitable trusts and the intention of donors serve as a timely reminder of the importance and impact of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others [2024] EWCA Civ 1247. This case stands as an important decision in the landscape of UK trust litigation, clarifying key legal principles, directly influencing how English courts approach disputes over the construction and administration of charitable trusts.

Background 

At the heart of the dispute was Abbey Mills, a property in London acquired in 1996 to serve as a mosque and community centre for the Tablighi Jamaat, a religious movement with growing influence in the UK. Two entities contended for ownership: the Dewsbury Trust, a registered charity with a lengthy history, and the London Trust, a locally focused trust which was established by declaration in November 1994 specifically for Abbey Mills. The Dewsbury Trust claimed that Abbey Mills was held under its charitable trust, while the London Trust argued the property was held for the benefit of the London community under its own trust.

In November 1994, the London Shura resolved to acquire the Abbey Mills site and appointed three local trustees to oversee the process, thus establishing the London Trust. The community undertook fundraising efforts, successfully raising £1.4 million. Tensions arose due to prior financial disagreements, raising concerns that some funds might be diverted to Dewsbury. Ultimately, Abbey Mills was purchased in the names of the London trustees, expressly for the London community’s benefit. To formalise these arrangements, a London Trust Deed was executed. Although it was based on Dewsbury’s trust deed, it was tailored for London’s needs. Subsequently, Dewsbury attempted to claim ownership of Abbey Mills, but the London trustees resisted.

The claimants brought proceedings seeking the removal of the current trustees and a declaration regarding the true construction of the trust’s purposes. Central to the dispute was the extent to which the original donors’ intentions—some expressed informally, others documented; should inform the interpretation of the trust deed and the permissible use of its funds. The main issue for the Court to decide therefore was whether donors intended their contributions to benefit the Dewsbury Trust or the London Trust.

Judgment

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal concluded that Abbey Mills was properly held by the London Trust. The Court of Appeal, led by Newey LJ, delivered a detailed judgment addressing both the construction of the trust deed and the admissibility of extrinsic evidence regarding donor intentions. The court reaffirmed the primacy of the written trust instrument but recognised that, in cases of genuine ambiguity, evidence of donor intention may be admissible to resolve uncertainties.

It was found that the funds for acquiring Abbey Mills were raised by the London Trust and intended for that specific community and in fact not the Dewsbury Trust. Even though receipts and administrative paperwork used the Dewsbury Trust’s name for convenience, the Court held this did not reflect true ownership.

Another important factor was surrounding a November 1994 meeting among London community leaders. The Appellants had challenged the evidence given around this meeting but the Court of Appeal found that there not sufficient foundation to interfere with the trial judge’s findings and indeed that this meeting had clearly signified there should be local control. While the trust deeds for Dewsbury and London were similar, the identity and control of the trustees provided the decisive factor in determining the beneficial ownership of Abbey Mills The reasoning from the Court of Appeal affirmed that the trial judge’s fact-based conclusions were well supported and within reason.

Legal Principles

Key legal principles established by the case include:

• Primacy of the Trust Deed: The starting point in construing charitable trusts remains the language of the deed itself. Courts should give effect to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, considering the context in which the deed was executed.
• Admissibility of Donor Evidence: Where the trust deed is ambiguous, contemporaneous evidence of the donors’ intentions—such as correspondence, meeting minutes, or public appeals—may be admitted to clarify meaning. However, such evidence cannot be used to contradict clear and unambiguous terms.
• Limits of Donor Control: Once a valid charitable trust is established, the legal and fiduciary control of the trust passes to the trustees. Donors cannot dictate the administration of the trust post-settlement, save where the trust instrument expressly provides otherwise.

Applying these principles, the Court of Appeal found that while some evidence was relevant to clarifying ambiguous provisions, the majority of the donors’ informal expectations could not override the terms of the trust deed. The trustees were therefore entitled to exercise their discretion within the scope of the deed’s purposes, and the claim for removal failed.

Subsequent UK Cases: Application and Distinction

Since the Court of Appeal’s decision, several UK cases have considered, applied, or distinguished the principles set out in Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others:

• Patel v Aziz Charitable Foundation [2025] EWHC 322 (Ch): The High Court applied Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others to reject an attempt by donors to impose retrospective conditions on the use of charitable funds, reiterating the primacy of the trust instrument.
• In re Friends of Greenway Trust [2025] EWHC 489 (Ch): The court distinguished Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others on the basis that, in this instance, the trust deed expressly provided for ongoing donor involvement in project selection, allowing the court to uphold the donors’ claim.
• Ali v Community Relief Trust [2025] EWCA Civ 678: The Court of Appeal followed the reasoning in Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others regarding the limited role of extrinsic evidence, dismissing a challenge to trustee discretion where the trust deed was unambiguous.

These cases demonstrate the emerging authority of Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others as an important decision on the interpretation of charitable donor intentions, while also highlighting the boundaries of its application.

Conclusion

The decision in Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others has had a significant impact on how English courts approach disputes involving charitable donor intentions. It emphasises that while donor input is relevant at the creation of a trust, the ongoing administration is governed by the trust instrument and the trustees’ fiduciary obligations. This provides clarity and certainty for trustees, who must balance donor expectations with their legal duties.

For donors, the case underscores the importance of ensuring that their intentions are clearly and formally recorded in the trust documentation. Informal agreements or understandings, even if widely known at the time, will not generally be enforceable if they contradict the express terms of the trust deed.

About the author

For parties affected by issues arising from Mohammed & Others v Daji & Others, Shams Rahman, partner in Property & Trusts Disputes at Edwin Coe LLP is particularly recommended. He is recognised for his expertise in trust and charity law, with a proven track record of representing clients in high-profile, complex disputes. Clients benefit from Shams’ commitment to achieving fair and effective outcomes, making him a trusted adviser for trustees, beneficiaries, and donors facing challenges in the wake of the decisions such as those referred to above.