Liam Gerard Harron v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKUT 275 (AAC)
Dr Reuben Kirkham v The Information Commissioner
22 April 2024
[2024] UKUT 127 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Dr. Kirkham tried to overturn some court decisions he wasn't even involved in. The higher court said he couldn't because he wasn't a proper party to the cases, and there were already other ways for him to challenge the decisions. They threw out his attempts to appeal.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Kirkham, an experienced litigant in person, applied for permission to appeal a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision and, alternatively, for permission to apply for judicial review.
- •The FTT decision dismissed Dr. Kirkham's application to set aside 11 strike-out decisions made by Judge McKenna in various Freedom of Information Act (2000) and/or Environmental Information Regulations (2003) cases.
- •Dr. Kirkham was not a party to the 11 cases but argued the FTT had jurisdiction to consider his application under rule 41 of the Tribunal Procedure (FTT) (GRC) Rules 2009.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) initially issued a strike-out warning, later holding an oral hearing.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal's role is to determine if the First-tier Tribunal made an error of law; if so, it can remake the decision or remit the case.
Kirkham v Information Commissioner (Section 12 of FOIA) [2018] UKUT 126 (AAC) at paragraph 38
The FTT does not have the power to act on its own initiative under rule 41 to set aside a decision; the application must be brought by a party to the proceedings.
MA v SSWP (PIP) [2020] UKUT 172 (AAC)
Rule 41 of the Tribunal Procedure (FTT) (GRC) Rules 2009 allows setting aside a decision only by a party to the proceedings.
Tribunal Procedure (FTT) (GRC) Rules 2009, Rule 41
Judicial review is a remedy of last resort and is usually refused if an adequate alternative remedy exists.
MRH Solicitors Ltd v Manchester County Court [2015] EWHC 1795 (Admin) at [18]; R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p Preston [1985] AC 835 at 862; R (Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain) v Charity Commission [2016] EWCA Civ 154 at [19]
A party lacks standing for judicial review if they lack a sufficient interest in the matter.
R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission ex p Argyll Group plc [1986] 1 WLR 763 at 773H
Outcomes
Application for permission to appeal struck out.
The application had no reasonable prospects of success because the FTT lacked jurisdiction to entertain Dr. Kirkham's application to set aside the decisions as he was not a party to the original proceedings.
Application for permission to apply for judicial review refused.
An adequate alternative remedy existed (the appeal), Dr. Kirkham lacked standing, and it was questionable whether the Upper Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 18 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Similar Cases
Ruth Farnsworth v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKUT 206 (AAC)
MD Ayaz Karim, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
[2024] EWHC 1368 (Admin)
Edward Williams v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 118 (GRC)
Ruth Farnsworth v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 592 (GRC)