Graham Garner v Shardlow & Great Wilne Parish Council
[2023] UKFTT 1067 (GRC)
Claire Stretton v The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead & Anor
19 December 2023
[2023] UKFTT 1051 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A council was late giving someone information the court ordered them to give. The court found the council careless but not intentionally bad, so they didn't punish them for contempt of court.
Key Facts
- •Claire Stretton applied to certify an offence of contempt against the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and the Information Commissioner for non-compliance with a Tribunal decision in EA/2021/0092.
- •EA/2021/0092 concerned Stretton's FOIA request for an unredacted report.
- •The Tribunal in EA/2021/0092 ordered the Council to disclose certain information within 35 days.
- •The Council disclosed the information late.
- •Stretton argued that the Council's delay constituted contempt of court.
- •The Council argued that the delay was due to workload, staff shortages, and late receipt of the Tribunal's decision.
Legal Principles
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) is responsible for enforcing its decisions, not the Information Commissioner.
Information Commissioner v Moss and the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames [2020] UKUT 174 (AAC)
There is no power to compel a public authority to comply with a substituted decision notice, but the power to certify an offence of contempt may operate as an incentive to comply.
None explicitly cited, but inferred from the discussion.
FTT's jurisdiction regarding certification of contempt is set out in section 61 FOIA.
Section 61 FOIA
An order must be expressed in clear, certain, and unambiguous language for committal.
Harris v Harris [2001] 2 FLR 895
The application notice must be sufficiently particularised.
Kea Investments Ltd v Eric John Watson & Ors [2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch)
The burden of proof is on the Applicant, and the standard of proof is the criminal standard.
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshellnniy Bank v Pugachev [2016] EWHC 192 (Ch)
Principles relating to civil contempts, including proportionality and the need for clear and unambiguous orders, are outlined in Navigator Equities Ltd & another v Deripaska [2021]EWCA Civ 1799.
Navigator Equities Ltd & another v Deripaska [2021]EWCA Civ 1799
Tribunal decisions should be accorded equal respect with the decisions of the Courts.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Harron [2023] UKUT 22 (AAC)
In contempt cases, the FTT should consider all circumstances to decide whether certification is proportionate. Disproportionate contempt orders do not serve the interests of justice.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Harron [2023] UKUT 22 (AAC)
Outcomes
The application to certify an offence of contempt against the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is refused.
While the Council's delay in complying with the Tribunal order was negligent and demonstrated an inadequate handling of the situation and a dismissive attitude towards its obligations, it was not willful. Certification was deemed disproportionate given the eventual compliance and the lack of intentional disregard for the Tribunal's decision.
The application to certify an offence of contempt against the Information Commissioner is refused.
There was no allegation of contemptuous behavior on the part of the Information Commissioner.