Ruth Farnsworth v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 592 (GRC)
Ruth Farnsworth v Information Commissioner
12 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 206 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman was denied access to information by the Information Commissioner. A lower court dismissed her appeal too quickly, without fully understanding her argument. A higher court overturned the dismissal, saying the lower court made a mistake, and the woman's case should be properly heard.
Key Facts
- •Mrs. Farnsworth appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that struck out her appeal against an Information Commissioner's (IC) decision.
- •The IC decision refused access to a 'DLP report' relating to a planning application, claiming it was unfinished under Environmental Information Regulations 2004, regulation 12(4)(d).
- •Mrs. Farnsworth, a litigant in person, argued the report was a complete, standalone document prepared by an external consultant (DLP), not a draft of the council's final report.
- •The FTT struck out the appeal, deeming it lacked reasonable prospects of success and not engaging with its jurisdiction.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appeal, finding the FTT erred in law by overly literally interpreting Mrs. Farnsworth's appeal grounds and failing to consider the evidence in her supporting notes.
Legal Principles
Rule 8(3)(c) strike-out applications in the FTT should be considered similarly to CPR r3.4 in civil proceedings, assessing if there's a realistic, not merely arguable, prospect of success at a full hearing. A 'mini-trial' should be avoided.
HMRC v Fairford Group plc [2014] UKUT 329, paragraph 41; Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91; Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1; ED & F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472
The exception in regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 is not engaged when a piece of work is complete in itself, even if part of a larger ongoing project. Factors to consider include a natural break in the work, readiness to go public, and whether further development is required.
Highways England Company Ltd v IC and Manisty [2019] AACR 17, paragraph 23; The First De Sales Ltd Partnership v HMRC [2019] 4 WLR 21, paragraph 33
Tribunals should interpret appeals from litigants in person reasonably and realistically, considering all submitted materials (including supporting documents) to determine if a realistic case is presented.
None explicitly stated, but derived from the UT's reasoning.
Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Upper Tribunal can set aside a FTT decision involving an error of law and remake that decision.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii)
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The FTT erred in law by failing to properly consider Mrs. Farnsworth's arguments and supporting evidence, leading to an unjust strike-out of her appeal. Her arguments, while not perfectly articulated, presented a realistic prospect of success.
The FTT decision is set aside.
The FTT's decision involved a material error of law by misinterpreting Mrs. Farnsworth's appeal and failing to recognize a realistic legal argument regarding the application of regulation 12(4)(d).
The UT remakes the FTT's decision, refusing to strike out Mrs. Farnsworth's appeal.
The UT found that Mrs. Farnsworth's arguments, as presented in her appeal and supporting documentation, possess sufficient merit to warrant a full hearing before the FTT.