Charity Commission loses judicial review bid over Ombudsman plans to report failures to Parliament

In Charity Commission for England and Wales v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [2026] EWHC 486 (Admin), Mr Justice Fordham found that the claim had become academic and should not be entertained, and that the Commission’s legal arguments were in any event unarguable.

He added that considerations of non-justiciability supported the decision about not entertaining an academic claim.

The case centred around the Ombudsman’s intention to present reports on two complaints that it said had been mishandled by the commission to Parliament.

The Ombudsman had carried out two separate reviews into the handling of a set of complaints about two separate charities. It concluded in both reviews that the complainants had been caused injustice as a result of maladministration by the Commission.

In one case, the PHSO said it had found decision-making maladministration because the Commission had failed to show it had taken into account relevant considerations in its assessment of risk, and had failed to properly balance information the complainant had provided. It also said that the complainant had been treated inadequately and dismissively.

In the second case, the Ombudsman found both “communication maladministration” and “decision maladministration”.

The PHSO made recommendations in both cases, including that the Commission review its communications processes and its approach to risk assessments. It also recommended that the Commission undertake reviews of its risk assessments and regulatory decisions.

An internal reviewer at the Commission subsequently carried out reviews into both complaints and produced 10-page reports on each case. However, the reviews referred to “sensitive” reports which were referenced but not provided to the complainants.

The Ombudsman later issued a decision letter stating that it believed there remained unremedied injustice in both cases. The letter stated that the Ombudsman had decided to lay special reports before both Houses of Parliament pursuant to section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

The Commission then filed a judicial review claim against the letter in May 2025.

However, Parliament later issued a motion in September 2025 requiring the Ombudsman to lay reports on both cases before the House of Commons for consideration by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Ombudsman laid the 2025 reports before the House of Commons later that month.

In refusing permission for judicial review, Fordham J noted that, because of Parliament’s involvement, a number of issues in the case were inappropriate for the court to comment on.

He said the court would avoid questioning “proceedings in Parliament”. He noted that the House of Commons motion of 4 September 2025, the laying of the reports on 9 September 2025, and the reports themselves all constituted proceedings in Parliament.

The judge also said that whatever is subsequently done or said within the committee process would likewise be a parliamentary proceeding with which the court “as a court of law has no concern”.

The court considered three issues when deciding whether permission for judicial review should be granted: whether the claim was academic, whether the legal merits were unarguable, and whether the claim was non-justiciable.

The Ombudsman and the Speaker of the House – who was an interested party in the litigation – argued the claim was non-justiciable because it called into question proceedings in Parliament, which are protected under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.

Fordham J ultimately concluded that the claim was academic and should not be entertained, that the legal merits were in any event unarguable, and that considerations of non-justiciability reinforced the decision not to entertain the claim.

However, he said that, if the claim had not been academic, and if the legal merits had been arguable, “I would not have refused permission on non-justiciability grounds but allowed the case to proceed to further substantive consideration of those grounds”.

A Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman spokesperson said that the High Court decision upheld the principle that the Ombudsman should hold public bodies to account, acting on behalf of Parliament.

They also stated that the two reports were laid before Parliament after failing to reach agreement on compliance with the Charity Commission.

The statement added: “Securing resolution for the complainants remains the priority, alongside making sure the lessons identified in our investigations are implemented.

“While the Charity Commission has made some changes after our original reports, we hope the Commission will now focus on working constructively to fully comply with our reports and provide the assurance that the public are entitled to expect.”

Commenting on the decision, a Charity Commission spokesperson reiterated its apologies to the two complainants, adding: “We have long accepted that there were important lessons for the Commission to learn from these, and we have previously apologised and paid compensation to each complainant.

“We brought this case in good faith to get clarity from the courts on the respective remits of the PHSO and Commission, to provide certainty to the sector we regulate. While we are disappointed with the decision not to permit a full hearing, the judgment provides a clearer basis on which both organisations can perform the distinct roles Parliament has given us.”

The spokesperson said that the court had reaffirmed the commission’s role in regulating charity governance “rather than acting as a safeguarding authority, and indicated that we cannot be expected to reinvestigate serious criminal allegations made against charity trustees”.

It added: “We recognise we need to draw further lessons from the court’s decision, particularly in terms of how we record and communicate our assessments of risk, and we will immediately review key aspects of the two cases in question.”

Damian Murray, who was one of the two complainants and an interested party in the case, said the Commission's claim should never have been brought, "especially at such an expense of time and public money".

The Commission should instead have addressed the "serious and pervasive management, governance and regulatory failures" that he alleged in his complaint, he said.

He also called for an independent party to investigate his original complaint.

Adam Carey