G Brida v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 401 (GRC)
Ivan Murray-Smith v The Information Commissioner
13 December 2023
[2024] UKFTT 697 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone appealed late to a tribunal about an information request. The tribunal couldn't help because the new information the person wanted to use happened *after* the initial decision. Plus, the appeal was too late.
Key Facts
- •Ivan Murray-Smith appealed a decision notice (IC-228374-W5Z4) issued on 12 May 2023 by the Information Commissioner.
- •The appeal was significantly out of time, with the notice of appeal dated 28 September 2023.
- •The appeal concerned the Information Commissioner's decision regarding Mr. Smith's request for traffic management orders, specifically the withholding of signatures as personal data.
- •Mr. Smith argued a material change in circumstances, as unredacted orders containing the same personal data were subsequently released.
- •The Tribunal considered whether to extend the time limit for the appeal.
Legal Principles
The First-tier Tribunal only has powers granted by statute; it lacks inherent jurisdiction.
Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
The Tribunal's jurisdiction in information rights cases begins once a decision notice is served (sections 57 and 58 of the FOIA).
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Enforcement of a decision notice is the Commissioner's responsibility, not the Tribunal's (section 54 FOIA).
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
The Tribunal cannot review the Commissioner's decision not to make a decision under section 50(2)(c) FOIA; this is challengeable by judicial review.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
In appeals against decision notices, the Tribunal considers the situation at the date of the response to the information request, not later events.
Paragraphs 18, 19
Outcomes
The Tribunal refused to extend the time limit for the appeal.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Smith's arguments based on subsequent release of information, as these post-dated the relevant response. The significant delay in appealing, coupled with the Tribunal's inability to address the core of Mr. Smith's argument, led to the refusal.