Fiona Watmore & Anor v Witherley Parish Council
[2024] UKFTT 395 (GRC)
Graham Garner v Shardlow & Great Wilne Parish Council
14 December 2023
[2023] UKFTT 1067 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A parish council was late giving someone information a tribunal ordered them to provide. The tribunal said this would be contempt of court in a regular court, but they decided not to punish the council because they were late and not deliberately trying to ignore the order. The council had limited resources and eventually did give the information.
Key Facts
- •Graham Garner (Applicant) requested information from Shardlow & Great Wilne Parish Council (Respondent) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) relating to the pruning of his laurel hedge.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) in EA/2022/0154 ordered the Council to provide specific information within 20 working days.
- •The Council failed to comply with the FTT's order within the deadline.
- •Garner applied to the FTT to certify the Council's non-compliance as contempt of court.
- •The Council subsequently provided the information, albeit late.
Legal Principles
The FTT has the power to certify an offence of contempt to the Upper Tribunal if an act or omission would constitute contempt of court if the proceedings were before a court with power to commit for contempt.
Section 61, Freedom of Information Act 2000; Rule 7A, Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
The standard of proof for contempt is the criminal standard – beyond reasonable doubt.
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2016] EWHC 192 (Ch)
Contempt proceedings must be proportionate and for legitimate ends; it is no defence that the order was wrongly made; orders must be complied with even if burdensome; deliberate intent to commit the act/omission is required, not intent to breach the order; contempt proceedings are not for civil compensation; orders must be clear and unambiguous.
Navigator Equities Limited v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799
The authority of courts and tribunals must be upheld through compliance with their orders. A different approach to contempt should not apply in tribunals.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Harron & The Information Commissioner [2023] UKUT 22 (AAC)
Outcomes
The FTT refused the application to certify the Council's non-compliance as contempt of court.
While the Council's failure to comply with the deadline constituted a contempt if before a court with contempt powers, the FTT chose not to exercise its discretion to certify it to the Upper Tribunal. The late provision was deemed not wilful, but rather a result of the Council's limited resources and understanding, and rectifying the breach mitigated the seriousness. A contempt order would be disproportionate.