Robert Moss v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 609 (GRC)
Dr Tony Cutler v The Information Commissioner & Anor
27 January 2023
[2023] UKFTT 85 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission for information but they refused, saying it was exempt. The person appealed, but the court said the appeal was weak and threw it out because the person didn't give good reasons why the Commission was wrong.
Key Facts
- •Dr Tony Cutler appealed a decision notice (IC-113849-Z7S6) from the Information Commissioner regarding a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
- •The EHRC applied to strike out the appeal for lacking reasonable prospects of success.
- •The appeal concerned the EHRC's refusal to provide information, citing section 44 FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure).
- •The Appellant did not adequately argue why the Commissioner's decision was unlawful or why the Commissioner's discretion should have been exercised differently.
Legal Principles
General right of access to information held by public authorities (subject to exemptions).
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Effect of exemptions in Part II of FOIA, including absolute exemptions and public interest considerations.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Prohibitions on disclosure; information exempt if disclosure is prohibited by or under any enactment, incompatible with retained EU obligations, or would constitute contempt of court.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Appeals against decision notices; Tribunal considers whether the notice is in accordance with the law or whether the Commissioner's discretion should have been exercised differently.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Tribunal can strike out an appeal with no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcomes
Appeal struck out.
The Appellant failed to demonstrate any legal error in the Commissioner's decision or provide reasons why the Commissioner's discretion should have been exercised differently.