Discussion
Discussion
Ground 1
Ground 1 alleges that the Appellant was denied a fair hearing because the late disclosure on the day before the two-day hearing before the First-tier Tribunal of 99 documents, running to some 320 pages, denied him and his counsel an adequate opportunity to consider and respond to that material, resulting in material unfairness.
I initially refused permission to pursue this ground of appeal on the papers, but the Appellant renewed his application in respect of this ground before Judge Jacobs who, after hearing oral argument, was persuaded to grant permission.
At the oral hearing before me Mr Fowles was able to cast further light on the difficulties that the Appellant, and he himself, had faced as a result of the provision of documents that Ground 1 complains of on the eve of the hearing before the Tribunal.
Mr Blake, for the Second Respondent, maintained that the supposedly late disclosure was not late at all, because the documents provided were documents that were already available to the Appellant through other sources, or were otherwise not required to be disclosed by the Second Respondent, and that they were provided purely in the spirit of helpfulness. He said that events in the lead-up to the hearing were ‘fast-moving’, and the Appellant too had provided documents late in the day.
I have decided in relation to Ground 2 that it is appropriate and in the interests of justice to set the FtT Decision aside and remit the matter to be re-heard by the First-tier Tribunal. Any unfairness that may have arisen as a result of documents being provided the day prior to the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal will therefore be subsumed in the rehearing. I do not, therefore, need to reach any conclusions on Ground 1.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal
- This case is about the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( “FOIA” ), which provides for a general right to disclosure of information held by public authorities, subject to certain exemptions It raises the legal issue of whether, when faced with a docum
- Factual background Homes for Haringey ( “HfH” ) was set up by Haringey Council (the “Council” ) in 2006 to manage its housing stock comprising approximately 21,000 leasehold properties, some of which were rented, and ot
- HLA was established in 2000 to provide representation to 4,500 leaseholders of Haringey Council. HLA has from time to time been ‘recognised’ by HfH as a consultative body for leaseholders, a status th
- The requests
- Procedural background
- Grounds of appeal
- The positions of the parties
- The Information Commissioner (First Respondent)
- Homes for Haringey (Second Respondent)
- The law
- Discussion
- Ground 2
- Ground 4
- Ground 7
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 245 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)