City Doctoral Researchers lose appeal against Charity Commission

In the recent case of City Doctoral Researchers' Association v The Charity Commission for England and Wales, the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) faced a significant jurisdictional question. This appeal was initiated by the City Doctoral Researchers’ Association, challenging the Charity Commission's handling of a complaint related to the European Academy of Optometry and Optics. The Tribunal's decision effectively confirmed its lack of jurisdiction over the matter, leading to a dismissal of the appeal.

The appeal process commenced on January 6, 2025, when the Appellant, the City Doctoral Researchers’ Association, submitted a Notice of Appeal. The grounds cited by the Appellant included claims that the Charity Commission had failed to address harmful practices by a Fellow of the charity, which they argued damaged both the charity and its members. The Appellant asserted that this failure exhibited systematic deficiencies in the Charity Commission's processes for managing complaints against charities.

At the heart of the matter was a critical email from the Charity Commission dated November 25, 2024. The Appellant believed this correspondence constituted a decision warranting appeal. However, upon closer examination, the Tribunal determined that this communication did not meet the threshold of a “decision, direction or order” necessary for the Tribunal to engage its jurisdiction under the relevant legislative framework.

In its evaluation, the Tribunal noted that, fundamentally, the Charity Commissioner’s email merely indicated the Commission's process and did not encapsulate a formal decision related to the Appellant’s complaint. The Tribunal highlighted that, as evidenced by a subsequent email in December 2024, the Charity Commission had not made any decision regarding the complaint raised by the Appellant. Jurisdictional parameters were explicitly defined by the Charities Act 2011, particularly under sections pertaining to the types of decisions that can be challenged in the Tribunal.

The Tribunal's ruling cited the Charities Act as central to understanding jurisdictional limitations surrounding appeals. Specifically, the Tribunal referred to Section 319 of the Act, indicating that appeals are permissible in circumstances where a formal decision by the Charity Commission exists. The commentary by Judge Harris further elucidated that appealing mere dissatisfaction with a process does not equate to appealing a substantive decision made by the Commission.

Additionally, the Tribunal scrutinised the grounds on which the Appellant sought jurisdictional claims, particularly focusing on sections of the Charities Act 2011 that outline the nature and scope of appealable matters. The Appellant argued that a failure to act constituted a breach of statutory duties; however, the Tribunal firmly maintained that without an actionable decision from the Charity Commission, the Tribunal lacked the power to intervene.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the previous ruling by Registrar Bamawo that rejected the appeal on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction. Judge Harris emphasised the importance of precise legal definitions and the constraints placed on the Tribunal by legislative measures. Consequently, the City Doctoral Researchers’ Association was left without recourse for their claim, further reinforcing the principle of jurisdictional integrity within the UK's charity sector governance.

The judgement serves as a significant reminder of the necessity for clear, formal decisions if stakeholders wish to challenge the operations of regulatory bodies such as the Charity Commission. As seen from this case, perceived procedural deficiencies alone do not provide sufficient grounds for appeal within the parameters set by existing laws. The official judgement was delivered on June 10, 2025, and can be referenced under [2025] UKFTT 654 (GRC).