Case of John Samson Miller v The Information Commissioner Highlights Jurisdictional Limitations in Appeal Process Under FOIA 2000

Citation: [2023] UKFTT 1070 (GRC)
Judgment on


The case of John Samson Miller v The Information Commissioner ([2023] UKFTT 1070 (GRC)) presents an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) concerning a decision made by the Information Commissioner. The Appellant, John Samson Miller, sought to challenge the decision that had been made concerning his right to British nationality by descent. In the analysis below, key topics are discussed, and the legal principles applied in the case are elucidated, providing insights into the decision made by Judge Foss.

Key Facts

John Samson Miller applied for permission to appeal a decision sent to the parties on 22 December 2023. However, his application was refused for the following reasons: lack of realistic prospect of success, no identification of an arguable error of law, and no exceptional circumstances that would justify a grant of permission to appeal. Furthermore, Miller’s original appeal sought assistance in establishing British nationality, a matter outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The legal principles applied in Miller’s case are grounded in the scope and jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal under sections 57 and 58 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”). The Tribunal emphasized that it is only empowered to address issues related to the right of access to information and issues arising under the FOIA 2000. In the original appeal, the Tribunal found that there were no errors in the Decision Notice and that Miller’s assertions concerning his British nationality by descent did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The case cited, Christie v Information Commissioner [2022] UKUT 315 (AAC), sets out circumstances under which exceptions might be made. However, the Tribunal determined that no such exceptional circumstances existed in Miller’s case that would justify granting permission to appeal.

The legal principle regarding the jurisdictional boundaries of tribunals was sternly applied, reinforcing that the Tribunal cannot entertain matters that are not within its prescribed legal mandate.


The key outcome in this case is the refusal of permission to appeal. The Tribunal concluded that Miller’s reasons for appealing, which were based on his desires surrounding his British nationality, did not engage with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Consequently, Judge Foss refused the application for appeal due to these reasons:

  1. Lack of realistic prospects for the appeal to succeed.
  2. No exceptional circumstances that could lead to granting permission to appeal.
  3. The Tribunal’s absence of jurisdiction to refer the matter to another Tribunal.


In conclusion, John Samson Miller v The Information Commissioner exemplifies the importance of understanding the jurisdictional limitations of legal bodies. The case reveals the Tribunal’s strict adherence to its prescribed remit under the FOIA 2000 and highlights the necessity for appellants to present matters that fall squarely within the legal scope of the Tribunal’s powers. The decision not only demonstrates the challenges faced by individuals seeking to utilize the appeals process for matters outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction but also the steadfast application of legal principles determining the appropriateness of granting permission to appeal.

Related Summaries