Tribunal Strikes Out Appeal in McKinnon v The Information Commissioner Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

Citation: [2023] UKFTT 909 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the matter of William McKinnon v The Information Commissioner (referenced as ‘[2023] UKFTT 909 (GRC)’), the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) on Information Rights addressed an appeal concerning the request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This case note analyzes the key topics of the case and elaborates on the legal principles applied, as well as the resulting decision to strike out the appeal.

Key Facts

The case involves a sequence of events beginning with Mr. William McKinnon’s initial request for information to Leeds City Council, followed by the Council’s response indicating the absence of the requested information. Mr. McKinnon lodged a complaint to the Information Commissioner citing dissatisfaction with the Council’s response. Concerns over the timeliness of this complaint led to the Information Commissioner’s decision to close the case, which Mr. McKinnon subsequently appealed to the Tribunal.

On procedural grounds, the Tribunal issued directions requiring Mr. McKinnon to clarify the basis of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Mr. McKinnon failed to respond to these directions, prompting the Tribunal to consider striking out the appeal.

The decision revolves around the Tribunal’s examination of its jurisdiction, a fundamental element underpinning the legitimacy of any adjudicatory body’s capacity to hear a case. The legal principles engaged include:

  1. Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules: Under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 8(2) states that the Tribunal must strike out proceedings or part of them that do not fall within its jurisdiction, unless the case is transferred to another court or tribunal per rule 5(3)(k)(i).

  2. Opportunity for Representation: Rule 8(4) of the 2009 Rules emphasizes the necessity of granting an appellant a chance to make representations before their case is potentially struck out.

  3. Requirement of a Decision Notice: Section 57(1) of the FOIA stipulates that an appeal to the Tribunal must be predicated on the presence of a decision notice. In the absence of such a notice, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

In applying these principles, the Tribunal scrutinized the administrative record, particularly the absence of a decision notice which is a prerequisite to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Outcomes

Upon review, the Tribunal concluded:

  1. No satisfactory response to the directions was received from Mr. McKinnon, leaving the jurisdictional question unanswered.

  2. With no decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner, the Tribunal acknowledged it had no authority under FOIA to proceed with the appeal.

  3. The case did not meet the conditions to trigger a transfer to another court per rule 5(3)(k)(i) of the 2009 Rules.

As a result, the Tribunal determined that the appeal must be struck out due to the lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)’s decision in William McKinnon v The Information Commissioner illustrates the stringent adherence to procedural rules governing the Tribunal’s jurisdictional scope. Without an issued decision notice and lack of response to clarify jurisdictional aspects, the Tribunal lacked the authority to consider Mr. McKinnon’s appeal, leading to the ultimate outcome of the case being struck out. It is a clear demonstration that the Tribunal strictly enforces procedural compliance and jurisdictional prerequisites in the interests of judicial economy and administrative integrity.