1. Claim for Alleged Racial Discrimination
Two separate claims were made by former employees of a charity alleging racial discrimination.
The first employee’s claim stated that she received discriminatory treatment in the workplace due to her ethnic background. She alleged that the other white employees received preferential treatment, and that whilst off sick due to stress-related illness incurred whilst working for the Trust, she was unfairly dismissed.
The second employee also alleged that he suffered from discriminatory treatment whilst in the employ of the Trust, and whilst off sick, he was unfairly dismissed.
The trustee named in this action stated that no such discrimination had occurred and the 2 employees were dismissed due to their substandard performances and unacceptable behaviour in the workplace, and that both employees were still in their probationary period. The trustee also stated that both she and the Trust had in the past received national recognition for the work they have done to combat racial discrimination.
It is unlikely that this claim will succeed, but a settlement will probably be agreed.
2. Claim for Alleged Trespass
The neighbouring landowner to a Trust claimed that the recent construction carried out by the Trust infringed on their property. The Trust claimed that they had documents from the 18th century, which showed that the previous owners had passed the land over to them, whereas the claimant declared that the land had never legally belonged to the previous owner.
It appears that this claim will be upheld and the claimant is indeed the legal owner of the disputed property. The trustees will therefore be responsible for damages and for restoring the land to its former condition.
3. Claim for Misuse of Trust Funds
Following an investigation by the Charity Commission, it was declared that the trustees named had illegally gained payments from the Trust by use of another trading company of which they were directors. The Charity Commission stated that there existed a conflict of interests and these salaries and dividends had to be returned, and the Trust be restructured.
The claim itself is for the reimbursement of legal fees incurred. However, as the claim does not directly stem from a Wrongful Act, but rather from the error of the solicitors involved in the formation of the Trust, the claim would not be upheld. However, the solicitors fees and investigation costs were paid.
4. Claim for Alleged Defamation
Following publication of an article, the charity trustees were sued for defamation by another charity with similar objectives. The claimants stated that certain statements made in the article were untrue and gave a false representation of the charity.
The matter was eventually settled out of court, but with considerable fees having been paid.
5. Claim for Alleged Denial of Access
A claim was made against the trustees as they had sublet a section of their premises to another organisation. This had been done without consultation to their landlord and broke the conditions of the charity's lease. As such, the landlord subsequently ordered the eviction of the subtenants, and the evictees then brought a successful claim against the trustees for denial of access.
6. Claim for Dishonesty of a Trustee
A claim was made by a charity which had suffered a loss of over £12,000. Due to poor internal controls, one of its trustees had managed to fraudulently withdraw £11,000 in a single transition, then a further £1,500 at a later date. The claim was settled for 80% of the total amount plus fees, a total amount of over £9,500.
7. Claim for Libellous Action
A claim was made against the trustees for alleged slander. After initial discussions, the allegation was retracted and an apology offered. The solicitor’s fees, which had been incurred, were settled for over £1,500.
8. Claim for Legal Fees to Defend a Charity Commission Investigation
An investigation by the Charity Commission led to allegations of the charity using their charitable status for avoidance of tax on their trading subsidiary. The charity was required to restructure their operation at their own cost, but the legal fees and other costs incurred in their investigations and in defending these allegations were covered, coming to a total of £1,200.