City Doctoral Researchers Association v Charity Commission of England and Wales

An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under the Charities Act 2011 lies only where the Charity Commission has made a decision within the statutory appeal scheme. A failure to act on a complaint, or a decision to take no action, is not a decision under section 34 to remove or retain an institution. The FTT’s statutory jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by judicial-review principles governing the High Court. An application for review under section 321 is confined to the Attorney General and the persons identified by the Act; complainants do not acquire standing merely because they may be affected.

The City Doctoral Researchers Association complained to the Charity Commission about the conduct of three charities towards its members. After the Commission declined to take action, the Association appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber). The FTT struck out the three appeals for want of jurisdiction and refused permission to appeal.

The Upper Tribunal had previously refused permission on the papers. At a hearing to reconsider those refusals, the Association argued that the Commission’s inaction amounted to a decision not to remove the charities from the register, or was otherwise appealable or reviewable by the FTT. It also alleged procedural injustice in the FTT proceedings. The central issue was whether any ground showed an arguable material error of law in the FTT’s jurisdiction decisions.

Permission to appeal was refused in all three applications.

1. Permission could be granted only if there was an arguable error of law with a realistic prospect of success. The judge found no such prospect in the challenges to the FTT’s jurisdiction ruling.

2. Under the Charities Act 2011, the FTT’s appeal jurisdiction is defined by the matters listed in Schedule 6. A decision by the Commission to take no action on a complaint is not a decision under section 34 to remove, or not remove, an institution from the register. The FTT therefore had no jurisdiction over these appeals.

   Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513 concerned the wider jurisdiction of the High Court on judicial review. That jurisdiction may, in some circumstances, permit the High Court to require a public body to exercise a power or make a decision. Those authorities did not extend the FTT’s statutory jurisdiction.

3. An application for review under section 321 could be made only by the Attorney General or the persons identified in the corresponding Schedule 6 entry: persons controlling or managing the institution, or the institution itself if it is a body corporate. Neither the Association nor its members had standing to apply.

4. The Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016 did not confer an FTT appeal right relevant to these complaints. Any alleged procedural injustice could not provide a realistic prospect of success because the appeals would still have to be struck out for want of jurisdiction. The judge was also not persuaded that such injustice had occurred.

• Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): Permission to appeal was refused on the papers in July 2026. Following a hearing to reconsider those refusals, permission was again refused.
• First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber): Struck out the three appeals for want of jurisdiction and refused permission to appeal against each decision.