Liam Harron v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 220 (GRC)
Liam Gerard Harron v The Information Commissioner & Anor
5 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 275 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone appealed a government decision about information they requested. A lower court threw out their appeal saying it couldn't hear the case. A higher court said the lower court was wrong and sent the case back to be heard properly, focusing on whether the appeal was valid, not whether the court could hear it.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Harron appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that struck out his appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision concerning a Freedom of Information request to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
- •The request sought communications related to Rotherham's decision not to distribute a booklet about child sexual exploitation and the identity of an expert consulted.
- •Rotherham refused the request citing section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) exemption for personal data.
- •The FTT struck out Mr. Harron's appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction.
- •Mr. Harron appealed the FTT's strike-out decision to the Upper Tribunal.
Legal Principles
The FTT has full merits jurisdiction on an appeal under section 58 of FOIA, not merely a secondary judicial review.
Information Commissioner v Malnick and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC); [2018] AACR 29 and Lin v ICO [2023] UKUT 143 (AAC)
Section 1 of FOIA establishes the general right of access to information held by public authorities.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 50 of FOIA details the process for complaints to the Information Commissioner.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Sections 57 and 58 of FOIA govern appeals to the FTT and the FTT's powers on such appeals.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 sets out grounds for striking out an appeal.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
A tribunal can act only within the jurisdiction conferred by legislation; this jurisdiction can be constitutive (power to hear a case) or adjudicative (powers exercised when deciding a case).
Carter v Ahsan [2005] ICR 1817 and Garthwaite v Garthwaite [1964] P 356
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed Mr. Harron's appeal.
The FTT erred in law by striking out the appeal on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. The FTT misconstrued Mr. Harron's grounds of appeal and failed to adequately consider whether its adjudicative jurisdiction was engaged, even if the appeal lacked merit.
The FTT's strike-out decision was set aside.
The FTT's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction was based on a misinterpretation of Mr. Harron's appeal and a failure to properly exercise its inquisitorial jurisdiction.
The matter was remitted to a newly constituted FTT.
The FTT should reconsider the strike-out application, focusing solely on whether Mr. Harron's appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.