Robert Moss v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 609 (GRC)
Ruth Farnsworth v The Information Commissioner
5 July 2023
[2023] UKFTT 592 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone appealed a decision about not getting a planning document. The judge decided the appeal was pointless because it didn't challenge the original decision properly and wanted something the judge couldn't give them, so they threw the appeal out.
Key Facts
- •Ruth Farnsworth (Appellant) appealed a Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner (Respondent).
- •The Decision Notice upheld a public authority's refusal to disclose a draft report under Regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
- •The appeal concerned the withholding of a draft report related to a planning application.
- •The Appellant challenged only one paragraph of the Decision Notice, questioning whether the report contained alternative proposals relevant to her application.
- •The Respondent applied to strike out the appeal under rule 8(3)(c) for lacking reasonable prospects of success.
Legal Principles
A strike-out application under FTT rule 8(3)(c) should be considered similarly to a CPR 3.4 application in civil proceedings.
HMRC v Fairford Group [2014] UKUT 0329 (TCC)
The Tribunal's role under sections 57 and 58 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (applicable to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004) is to determine errors of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion in the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, sections 57 & 58
Outcomes
The appeal was struck out.
The appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success as it did not allege any error of law in the Decision Notice and sought a remedy (further disclosure) beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.