Background
The City Doctoral Researchers Association complained to the Charity Commission about the conduct of three charities: the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, the European Academy of Optometry and Optics, and City, University of London, Students Union. The Association contended that the charities had breached charity-law obligations in relation to its members. The Commission declined to take action on each complaint.
The Association appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber). The FTT struck out all three appeals for want of jurisdiction and later refused permission to appeal. The Association renewed its applications in the Upper Tribunal, arguing that the Commission’s inaction was effectively a decision not to remove the institutions from the register under section 34 of the Charities Act 2011.
The Court’s Holding
The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal. It held that the Association had no realistic prospect of establishing a material error of law in the FTT’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction. An appeal under Schedule 6 to the Charities Act 2011 requires an actual Commission decision under section 34 to remove, or not remove, an institution from the register; a decision to take no action on a complaint is not such a decision.
The Tribunal rejected reliance on Padfield and ex p Fire Brigades Union. Those authorities concern the High Court’s judicial-review jurisdiction, which may extend to public-body inaction, whereas the FTT has only the jurisdiction Parliament conferred. The Association and its members also lacked standing to seek a section 321 review concerning a decision to institute an inquiry, and alleged procedural unfairness could not alter the inevitable jurisdictional outcome.
Key Takeaways
- Charity Commission inaction on a complaint is not, without more, an appealable decision not to remove a charity from the register.
- The FTT’s charity jurisdiction is limited to the matters expressly listed in Schedule 6 to the Charities Act 2011.
- Challenges to Commission inaction may instead be pursued by judicial review, and maladministration complaints may be made to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm line between statutory tribunal appeals and judicial review. Persons affected by a charity’s conduct cannot turn the Commission’s refusal to intervene into a Schedule 6 appeal unless the Commission has actually made the specified statutory decision.
It also confirms that procedural complaints will not justify permission to appeal where the tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction is dispositive and the same strike-out result is inevitable.