Derek Moss v The Upper Tribunal
[2024] EWCA Civ 1414
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Liam Harron & Anor
8 May 2023
[2023] UKUT 191 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone who wasn't part of a court case wanted documents from it. The judge said no, because they didn't explain why they needed the documents and because the main points were already public.
Key Facts
- •Derek Moss, a non-party, applied for disclosure of parties' written submissions (statements of case and skeleton arguments) in Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Harron & The Information Commissioner's Office and Harron v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council & The Information Commissioner's Office.
- •The application was based on open justice principles and Article 6 ECHR.
- •Moss's previous application for disclosure was refused in September 2022.
- •The Upper Tribunal allowed the parties to make representations on the application.
- •No submissions were received from RMBC.
- •The Upper Tribunal considered the application based on written submissions, without an oral hearing.
Legal Principles
Open justice principle applies to the Upper Tribunal.
Moss v Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 580; Dring [2019] UKSC 38
No express power in Upper Tribunal Rules to provide non-parties with documents.
Upper Tribunal Rules
Inherent jurisdiction to determine what open justice requires in terms of access to documents.
Dring at para 41
Non-party seeking access must explain why and how granting access advances open justice; balancing exercise considers potential value of information and risk of harm.
Dring at paras 41-47
Article 6 ECHR does not add to the common law open justice principle in this context.
N/A
CPR 5.4C provides for document supply to non-parties in court records, but no direct equivalent in Upper Tribunal Rules.
CPR 5.4C
Outcomes
Moss's application for disclosure was refused.
Moss failed to show a good reason why providing the documents would advance the open justice principle; his reasoning was insufficient and his approach to the application was problematic. The Upper Tribunal also considered proportionality.