First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

FT/EJ/2024/0007 - [2025] UKFTT 01318 (GRC)

Fecha: 22-Oct-2025

Issues and evidence

Issues and evidence

22.

The issues were set out in Case Management Directions by Tribunal Judge Lynn Griffin on 8 July 2024 as follows:

Is the Respondent guilty of any act or omission in relation to proceedingsbefore the Tribunal which, if those proceedings were proceedings before acourt having power to commit for contempt, would constitute a contemptof court?

T alleges that the acts or omissions are:

•

Communicating T’s personal data to a third party in breach of the anonymity order made in EA/2023/0390

•

The failure to comply with the substituted decision by failing to provide all the information requested

The Tribunal is likely to be assisted in the determination of the aforementioned issue by submissions on the following matters:

Whether the terms of the Substituted Decision Notice and/or the anonymity order in EA/2023/0390 were sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to be capable of founding a finding of contempt for breach thereof;

ii.

If so, what were the obligations imposed on the Respondents by the Substituted Decision Notice and/or the anonymity order?

iii.

Whether the acts of the Respondent (for example, the sending of some information to T) were sufficient to comply with the decision of the Tribunal?

iv.

Does either of the Applicants have a right to complain to the Information Commissioner pursuant to section 50(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) in relation to the assertion that the response to the Substituted Decision Notice was not a sufficient response to their information request?

If the Respondent, is “guilty of an act or omission in relation to proceedings before the Tribunal which, if those proceedings were proceedings before a court having power to commit for contempt, would constitute a contempt of court”, should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to certify a contempt?

The Tribunal is likely to be assisted in the determination of this issue by submissions on whether such a breach was accidental or wilful.

23.

Due to the factual background and on the basis of the submissions and clarifications received by the Tribunal from Counsel and legal representatives as set out in paragraphs 10 – 14 above, we have assessed these questions in relation to all parties concerned i.e. the Respondent, the School and 5 Dimensions Trust.

24.

There have been a number of case management hearings and directions, and additional documents have been disclosed to the Applicant as set out below.

25.

We have also considered whether the existing anonymity order should be made permanent, and whether the application to remove the anonymity order should succeed.

26.

We had a bundle of documents, which included two witness statements from Tony Nelson, Chief Executive of 5 Dimensions Trust, and one witness statement from the Applicant. We heard evidence from Mr Nelson under oath. We had detailed written submissions from the Applicant, which we read before the hearing. We had oral submissions from the Applicant and from Mr Wilson on behalf of the Respondent. Although we do not address below every point that was made by the parties, we have taken all of the evidence and submissions into account in making our decision.