Key Issue: Tribunal refuses permission to appeal in FOIA case due to lack of reasonable prospect of success.

Introduction

The case of Peter Dennis v Information Commissioner [2023] UKFTT 998 (GRC) concerns an application for permission to appeal a decision made by the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) to strike out an appeal on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success. This article provides a detailed analysis of the key topics discussed, the legal principles applied in the case, and the outcomes of the decision, in light of the case summary provided.

Key Facts

1. The applicant, Peter Dennis, had his appeal struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
2. Peter Dennis made a multi-part request for information that included seeking details about the recruitment process for the post of acting principal at a school, which the Education Authority (EA) allegedly failed to provide.
3. The Information Commissioner responded to a complaint relating to a specific part of the multi-part information request.
4. An email dated 10 September 2020 from the Chair of the Board of Governors was not considered in the initial Information Request appeal, which Dennis later highlighted as being a potential FOIA offence or maladministration by the EA.
5. Dennis made an application for permission to appeal the Tribunal’s decision to strike out his appeal.

Legal Principles

Reasonable Prospect of Success

The core principle at play here revolves around whether there is a reasonable prospect of success for an appeal to proceed. As stated in the decision, citing Lord Woolf MR in Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1538, there must be a “realistic (as opposed to a fanciful)” chance for success. This threshold was not met in the view of Judge J Findlay.

Scope of Information Request

The legal framework of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) underpins the applicant’s information request. The case illustrates the interpretation of what information falls within the scope of a FOIA request and clarifies that not all information an applicant believes to be relevant necessarily satisfies the request’s criteria.

Error of Law and Exceptional Circumstances

The tribunal considered whether there was any error of law within the original decision or if there were any exceptional circumstances as described in Christie v Information Commissioner [2022] UKUT 315 (AAC). The tribunal found neither of these to be present and thus refused the application for permission to appeal.

Tribunal Procedure Rules

The tribunal followed the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended, specifically rule 44, when deciding not to review the Decision themselves before refusing permission to appeal.

Outcomes

The tribunal concluded that:

1. The information provided in the email dated 10 September 2020 did not fall under the scope of the information requested as it was not an advertisement for the acting principal post.
2. No further information was held by the EA that fell within the request’s scope.
3. There was no error of law in the decision, no exceptional circumstances present, and thus no arguable grounds for an appeal.
4. As a result, permission to appeal was refused by Judge J Findlay.

Conclusion

In summary, the case of Peter Dennis v Information Commissioner [2023] UKFTT 998 (GRC) exemplifies the First-Tier Tribunal’s application of legal principles concerning the reasonable prospect of success in appeals and the specificity required in FOIA requests. The analysis reveals the intricate process of judicial review on decisions to strike out appeals and the rigorous adherence to established legal thresholds for granting permissions to appeal. As the tribunal did not find an arguable error of law or any exceptional circumstances, the application for permission to appeal was refused, demonstrating the court’s discretion in upholding the initial decision when the applicant’s claims did not meet the necessary legal standards.