Margaret Rosalind Stokell & Ors, Re [2026] EWHC 1080 (Ch)

[2026] EWHC 1080 (Ch)Case No PT 2024 000918IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALESIN THE MATTER OF THE JESUS FELLOWSHIP COMMUNITY TRUSTVenue Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLDate 5 May 2026
Before
CHIEF MASTER SHUMAN
Between
MARGARET ROSALIND STOKELLClaimantsCOLIN CHARLES SHERIDAN RIDLEYClaimantJAMES PETER HALLClaimantSIMEON PAUL WHITEClaimant
Paul Adams (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for Claimants
WRITTEN REASONS

Chief Master Shuman:

[1]This claim arises out of the activities and eventual collapse of a religious organisation set up in the late 1960s and known as the Jesus Fellowship Church (“the Church”). Over many decades the Church operated a form of communal living (“the Community”). Members who joined the Community were encouraged, and in many cases expected, to devote their labour, income and assets to the collective life of the Community. Private ownership and personal autonomy were substantially curtailed. At its peak in the 1990s the Community comprised over 900 individuals.[2]The Community, and indeed the Church, were marked by a highly hierarchical structure. Authority rested in practice with Noel Stanton, the founder and leader of the Church, supported by a small group of senior figures. Decision making was centralised. Matters of finance, property, work, residence and personal conduct were subject to direction from Noel Stanton and those occupying positions of leadership around him rather than determined by individual choice.[3]In 2009 Noel Stanton died.[4]From 2013 onwards serious concerns emerged about the conduct of Noel Stanton, members of the senior leadership of the Church and the Community and others. Allegations were made of sustained emotional and psychological abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and exploitation of members within the community. Those allegations included physical and sexual abuse. The nature of the Community and the degree of authority exercised by Noel Stanton and senior figures, meant that members were particularly vulnerable to such abuse. By 2019 there were over 200 complaints about the activities of the Community. There are alleged to be 264 perpetrators of abuse of whom 162 were leaders in the Church and the Community.[5]Those concerns gave rise to public investigations and in some cases civil claims and criminal convictions. The exposure of abuse led to the rapid and irreversible collapse of the Community.[6]The Jesus Community Fellowship Trust (“the Trust”) was closely connected to the Church and in particular to those members of the Church who gave up their private homes and assets in order to participate in communal living, the Community.[7]The assets of the Trust were, in large part, derived from contributions of capital, income and labour, and from payments made over a period of decades by individuals living within the Community from time to time. The principal function of the Trust was to hold properties and businesses for the benefit of members of the Community. Adult full members of the Community were required to contribute their capital wealth to the Trust. In addition they were required, on an ongoing basis, to pay all of their income into pooled funds called “common purses”. The purses were used to discharge expenses and any balance paid to the Trust. Although it was possible to leave the Community, this was discouraged. Upon leaving individuals might receive the capital they contributed to the Trust, they did not receive any contributions of income. If they died whilst still a member, their estate did not receive any monies. Profits from businesses held under the Trust were channelled back into the Trust[8]The Trust accumulated property and other assets during the period of communal living, often in circumstances where the distinction between individual contribution and collective ownership was blurred by the culture and practices of the organisation under Noel Stanton’s leadership.[9]Once the Community collapsed, the principal purpose of the Trust as an active trust, namely to support the Community, fell away.[10]In December 2020 there was a resolution to wind up the Trust. Since that decision the trustees have been overseeing the realisation of assets, the identification and payment of lawful claims against the Trust and the distribution of surplus assets as set out in the trust deed, including to or as directed by the beneficiaries, being individuals who were considered to be members of the Community at a cut off date of 31 May 2020.[11]The claimants are the trustees under the Trust (“the trustees”) and have been required to administer the trust in wholly exceptional circumstances.[12]Safeguarding concerns were acute. There was a real and understandable fear that former patterns of power, influence and control associated with Noel Stanton’s leadership might be replicated if care was not taken. Equally, prolonged inaction carried its own risks, including the deterioration of Trust assets and the continuation of uncertainty for those with potential claims.[13]From 2022 to 2024 the trustees have established and operated an application based redress scheme for individuals who have suffered abuse or adverse experiences in the Church and the Community. Some 890 applications made by 601 individuals have been received and processed. Some £7.761million in compensation has been paid, and the redress scheme has now concluded. The assets of the Trust have been realised. That leaves the question for the trustees of how to make final distributions when there is the possibility of further equitable or proprietary claims being made against the Trust’s assets.[14]It is in that context that the trustees concluded that they could not safely proceed without the court’s supervision. They have brought a Part 8 claim under CPR Part 64 seeking directions from the court.[15]It is important to reiterate that the present proceedings are not adversarial litigation in any conventional sense. They are brought to obtain the court’s directions and approval in respect of a proposed approach to trust administration which seeks to bring order, fairness and finality to an exceptionally difficult situation.[16]The character of the proceedings also reflects this history. Communication has frequently been guarded and adversarial. Positions have been strongly held. Attempts to narrow issues or achieve consensus have met with limited success. That is not surprising in litigation which follows the collapse of a closed, authoritarian system centred on the authority of Noel Stanton and marked by serious abuse.[17]It is important to be clear about the limits of the court’s task. The court is not asked to determine the truth or falsity of allegations of abuse against Noel Stanton or members of the senior leadership, nor to allocate blame for past wrongdoing. Those matters lie outside the scope of these proceedings.[18]At the same time, it would be artificial to disregard the context from which this dispute arises. The issues before the court do not exist in a vacuum. They are the product of decisions taken, concerns held, and risks perceived in the aftermath of abuse within a coercive system led by Noel Stanton.[19]I therefore approach the issues in this case on the footing that the existence, operation and collapse of the Church and Community, led by Noel Stanton, and marked by allegations of abuse against him and the senior leadership, form an essential part of the factual matrix. That background informs the assessment of the trustees’ actions.

The Claim

[20]The trustees have asked the court to authorise them to implement a procedure for identifying any further claims in respect of the Trust, before proceeding to distribute the Trust in accordance with the Trust Deed and otherwise completing the winding up of the Trust. This type of order is an extended form of a Benjamin order.[21]Although various parties and interested groups were given notification of the claim, none elected to participate in the claim.[22]The issues for determination are:(1) whether the trustees have power to adopt and implement the proposed claims and resolution procedure;(2) whether the trustees are acting for proper purposes and in accordance with their fiduciary duties;(3) whether the court should grant extended Re Benjamin relief so as to protect the trustees and enable lawful finality; and(4) whether the proposed arrangements as to notice, claims determination, retention and finality are fair, proportionate and lawful.

The Legal Principles

[23]The court has an inherent supervisory jurisdiction over trusts, particularly where trustees seek directions in circumstances of uncertainty, risk or exceptional difficulty. As Romer J explained in Re Benjamin [1902] 1 Ch 723, the jurisdiction exists to enable trustees to act “without the peril of personal liability”.[24]Trustees must act in good faith, for proper purposes, and within the range of decisions open to reasonable trustees properly directing themselves. Where they are doing so the court does not substitute its own view for theirs. The question rather for the court is whether the proposed course falls within the range of decisions open to reasonable trustees properly directing themselves: Gibbons v Smith [2021] EWHC 1278 (Ch).[25]Mr Adams, counsel for the trustees, submits that this is not a conventional Re Benjamin case. As he correctly points out Re Benjamin relief is no longer confined to cases of uncertainty as to the identity or whereabouts of beneficiaries. It extends to situations in which trustees face claims or potential claims which are speculative, remote, or incapable of responsible resolution through ordinary means, but which cannot simply be disregarded: see Lewin on Trusts, 20th ed, at paragraphs 24-033 and 39-033.[26]In Re MF Global UK Ltd (No. 3) [2013] 1 WLR 3874 a bank had gone into special administration holding client monies. The regulatory framework imposed a trust of these monies and stated in principle how the fund was to be divided. David Richards J, as he then was, approved directions for the bank to implement a bespoke procedure for inviting and determining claims, and a Benjamin order to authorise distribution without regard to any claims other than those submitted and accepted. At paragraph 26 he said, the court has jurisdiction to, “give directions to trustees to distribute trust property on particular bases when the court is satisfied it is just and expedient to do so”. At paragraph 32, “bearing in mind the need to “balance both the interests of established [beneficiaries] to a timely return of their money and the interests of persons with serious but unresolved claims”.[27]The trustees rely on Re MF Global UK as enabling fiduciaries to proceed to administration and distribution notwithstanding unresolved uncertainty, provided that the process adopted is fair, proportionate, and includes appropriate safeguards. As explained at paragraphs 17, 26 and 32 of Re MF Global the focus of the court’s inquiry is not absolute certainty, but whether the procedure proposed represents a responsible and lawful response to the difficulties faced.[28]The trustees here face a similar difficulty faced by the administrators in Re MF Global. They cannot safely dismiss possible claims, yet cannot achieve certainty through ordinary engagement. Extended Re Benjamin relief is therefore required to enable lawful administration with finality.

The Trust Deed

[29]The original trust deed was made on 31 October 1979 (the trust deed). It was created in circumstances very different from those which now prevail. It was designed to hold and administer property accumulated during a period of communal living, under a governance structure characterised by centralised authority and limited individual autonomy. The trust deed was not drafted with the collapse of the Community, or the exposure of serious abuse within its leadership, in contemplation. The current governing trust deed is in the hearing bundle.[30]In 2019 the members of the Church voted to dissolve the Church by revoking its constitution. In 2020 there was a resolution to wind up the Trust. Prior to this time the beneficiaries fluctuated, broadly comprising the full members of the Community from time to time, described in the trust deed as “Contributing Members”. Not all members of the Church or the Community were Contributing Members. There were temporary guests who would stay in the Community and persons considering joining the Community could trial living in the Community as a probationary member.[31]In July 2020 the trust deed was amended to close the class of beneficiaries as of 31 May 2020. The 172 Contributing Members became the fixed class of beneficiaries, known as the Listed Beneficiaries.[32]The operative provisions of the trust deed are contained in the hearing bundle, and, in particular, in the consolidated trust deed as amended and in force at the time of this claim.[33]The trust deed identifies the Trust and the breadth of the trustees’ powers in expansive terms. The trustees are declared to hold the fund:
“UPON TRUST to apply the same for the benefit of the Contributing Members”
[34]They are expressly empowered:
“to buy sell acquire and transfer such assets as they shall consider desirable without restriction as to their powers and to preserve insure repair and maintain the said assets.”
[35]I am satisfied that the trust deed provides no obstacle to a structured, court supervised process of the kind proposed by the trustees in this claim.

The approach to the winding up the Trust

[36]As explained in the trustees’ skeleton argument and supported by the evidence, the winding‑up of the Trust has been structured and implemented as a staged process proceeding through four distinct phases. That structure reflects both the terms of the trust deed and the practical realities confronting the trustees following the dissolution of the Community.[37]The first phase consisted of payments to the Listed Beneficiaries. Those payments included the return of capital previously contributed to the Trust, provision to meet immediate needs arising from transition out of communal living, and advances against anticipated future distributions. This phase was directed to addressing identifiable entitlements arising from beneficiary status under the trust deed and did not involve the determination of wider or contested claims.[38]The second phase comprised the establishment and operation of the Redress Scheme, together with the resolution of other civil and monetary claims advanced against the Trust outside that scheme. The Redress Scheme was intended to provide a swift, non‑adversarial and compassionate mechanism for addressing abuse‑related claims and other adverse experiences arising out of life in the Church and the Community. It was extensively utilised and resulted in substantial payments and settlements.[39]The third and fourth phases, which have not yet been implemented, stand on a different footing. They are expressly contemplated by the trust deed and require the trustees to formulate proposals for the application of the remaining Trust assets and to put those proposals to a vote of the Listed Beneficiaries. The outcome of that process will determine, in broad terms, whether final distribution is confined to the Listed Beneficiaries or extended more widely, and on what basis. The assets to be distributed in these phases are in excess of £24.9 million.[40]Further, before those final phases can lawfully proceed, the trustees remain on notice of potential equitable and proprietary claims which fall outside the scope of the Redress Scheme and which cannot responsibly be ignored. Also over a number of years the trustees have received enquiries from people, other than the Listed Beneficiaries, who consider that they should benefit under Phase 3 and/or phase 4. In the absence of the court’s assistance, the existence of those unresolved claims risk exposes the trustees to potential personal liability for wrongful distribution and/or under the Guardian Trust principle and threatens to impede, if not paralyse, the completion of the winding‑up. It is that difficulty which gives rise to the present application and explains why further progress into the final phases requires the supervision and protection of the court.[41]The trustees propose a procedure designed to elicit any further equitable or proprietary claims intended to be pursued in respect of the Trust’s assets (otherwise than in accordance with the current trust deed and the trustees’ understanding of the identity of the Listed Beneficiaries).Upon implementation of the procedure the trustees may then administer the Trust in accordance with the terms of the current trust deed and their list of Listed Beneficiaries. The directions have been approved by the court (“the Order”).[42]In summary the trustees proposed that, i). First, the trustees are authorised and directed to implement a procedure for identifying claims in respect of the Trust, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Order. As in MF Global, the purpose of the procedure is not to determine claims conclusively at the outset, but to transform an amorphous and potentially paralysing landscape of claims risk into a defined and manageable process. To that end, the Order requires formal notice to be given to persons who may have claims, including both those previously known to the trustees and those who have registered an interest, together with public notice on the Trust’s website. The Notice draws attention to clauses 24 and 25 of the Trust Deed and explains the consequences of non‑participation. ii). Any person wishing to pursue a claim falling within Schedule 2 to the Order must intimate that claim by the specified deadline and provide the “Required Information” defined in Schedule 1. This reflects the approach endorsed in MF Global, where the court approved a requirement that claims be articulated within a clear procedural framework and supported by sufficient information to enable an initial assessment, as a legitimate incident of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. iii). Following the expiry of the notification period, the trustees are required, with the benefit of legal advice, to classify each claim as either “Rejected” or “Pending Resolution”, applying the criteria in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. The Order confines rejection to cases where the claim lacks the required information, falls outside the defined categories, or lacks a plausible factual or legal basis. This is consistent with MF Global at [17] and [32], where the court recognised that trustees may be authorised to make an initial assessment of claims, subject to safeguards, so that insubstantial or speculative claims do not indefinitely block administration. iv). Judicial oversight is preserved at this stage. Any claimant whose claim is classified as rejected has a right of referral to the court, which will determine whether the claim should instead be treated as pending resolution. As in MF Global, this ensures that the trustees are not the final arbiters of exclusion, while still preventing the winding‑up from being paralysed by unarticulated or implausible assertions. v). Once the claims procedure has been completed, paragraph 3 of the Order authorises the trustees, subject to the retention provisions, to administer the Trust and the Trust Fund in accordance with the trust deed and the list of Listed Beneficiaries, on the footing that no claims of the types specified in Schedule 2 exist other than those classified as pending resolution. The protection operates to shield the trustees from personal liability, without determining substantive rights or precluding claims against recipients of distributions. vi). The Order makes clear the steps which the trustees may thereafter take. These include making distributions under clauses 25(iii‑b) and 25(iv) of the Trust Deed and otherwise completing the winding‑up.[43]The scheme is reinforced by a mandatory retention. Under paragraph 5 of the Order, the trustees are required to retain a defined fund to meet costs, expenses and indemnity claims, including claims by former trustees. This reflects the observation in MF Global that trustees may proceed without absolute certainty provided reasonable provision is made to accommodate residual claims risk. The Order prescribes both the permitted uses of the retained fund and the priority of claims, together with defined retention periods and provision for further court involvement if required.[44]Taken as a whole, the proposed directions give effect to the principles articulated in MF Global. They do not adjudicate claims or finally determine entitlements. Instead, they enable practical effect to be given to the Trust by converting a diffuse and destabilising risk of claims into a controlled process, allowing the trustees to complete the winding‑up and proceed to final distribution with lawful finality and without incurring personal exposure.[45]Taken together, these phases demonstrate that the proposed scheme is not an attempt to rush to distribution or to foreclose claims prematurely. It is an ordered, judicially supervised process which reflects the Trust’s exceptional history.[46]The phased structure also explains why extended Re Benjamin relief is needed. Only by authorising the trustees to proceed through these stages, with court protection at each step, can the Trust be administered safely, fairly and to lawful conclusion.[47]Without a court‑approved claims procedure of this nature, the trustees would face an untenable dilemma: either indefinite delay or indefinite risk. Trust law does not require such paralysis.[48]The claims procedure is therefore not merely ancillary to the relief sought. It is the juridical foundation upon which extended Re Benjamin relief properly rests.[49]The Trust deed confers the necessary power to implement the proposed procedure. The trustees have acted in good faith, for proper purposes, and within the scope of reasonable fiduciary discretion.[50]The extended Re Benjamin relief sought is justified. The claims procedure, notice arrangements and retention are fair, proportionate and lawful.[51]These written reasons recognise the gravity of the abuse perpetrated within the organisation led by Noel Stanton and the lasting harm suffered by many affected by it. The court’s task, however, is not to adjudicate that history.[52]It is to enable the trustees to discharge their duties responsibly and with lawful finality. The application is therefore granted. The trustees are authorised and directed to implement the proposed procedure with the protection of the court.