Mark Jervis v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 208 (GRC)
David Eric Platts v The Information Commissioner
21 February 2023
[2023] UKFTT 167 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone appealed a decision about information they requested. The court said they couldn't hear the appeal because the appeal wasn't about whether the initial decision was legally wrong, just about whether the person who originally denied the information was right about their facts. The court only deals with legal issues, not factual ones.
Key Facts
- •David Eric Platts appealed a Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner.
- •The appeal concerned an information request to the Pensions Ombudsman regarding a supposed 'cost criterion' for investigations.
- •The Pensions Ombudsman denied the existence of such a criterion.
- •The Information Commissioner's Decision Notice found that no relevant information was held.
- •The appeal argued that the Applicant wasn't consulted before the Decision Notice and that the Ombudsman might hold relevant information.
- •The Registrar initially struck out the appeal due to lack of reasonable prospects of success.
- •The Applicant requested a Judge reconsider the strike-out.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine appeals alleging that a Decision Notice was wrong in law or involved an inappropriate exercise of discretion by the Information Commissioner.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Tribunal Rules allow for strike-out if the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success or the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcomes
The appeal was struck out.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the appeal because the grounds did not allege the Decision Notice was wrong in law or involved an inappropriate exercise of discretion. The Applicant's belief about the cost criterion was not something the Tribunal could review.