Liam Gerard Harron v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKUT 275 (AAC)
Peter Tilson v Information Commissioner
16 February 2024
[2024] UKUT 83 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone asked a council for information. The council and the Information Commissioner said they didn't have it. A lower court threw out the case. A higher court said the lower court made a mistake and sent the case back for another hearing because there was new evidence and important arguments were missed.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Tilson requested information from Northumberland County Council.
- •The council claimed the information was on its planning portal.
- •The Information Commissioner concluded the council did not hold the requested information.
- •Mr. Tilson appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The FTT struck out the proceedings.
- •Mr. Tilson appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT).
- •The UT found the FTT erred in law by not considering all of Mr. Tilson's arguments.
- •New evidence emerged showing the council did hold some of the requested information.
Legal Principles
A case should be struck out only if the outcome is "realistically, and for practical purposes, clear and incontestable."
AW v IC and Blackpool CC [2013] UKUT 30 (ACC) at §9
The FTT's role is to determine whether information is held, not whether it should have been held.
This case
The Upper Tribunal can set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal if there was an error of law.
Section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Outcomes
The First-tier Tribunal's decision was set aside.
The FTT failed to consider all of Mr. Tilson's arguments, specifically his challenge to the Commissioner's finding that the council did not hold the information.
The case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.
The UT found an error of law in the FTT's decision. The emergence of new evidence also supported a rehearing.