![[2024] UKUT 290 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The parties’ positions
The parties’ positions
Counsel for the Information Commissioner resisted the appeal, arguing that:
it was open to the First-tier Tribunal judge on the evidence before him and as a matter of law, to conclude that Mr Puchooa’s appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and to strike it out; and
it was open to the First-tier Tribunal judge to place reliance on the Information Commissioner’s findings in the reasons he gave for striking out the appeal and, while his reasons for striking out the proceedings were brief, when read with the case put by the Information Commissioner with which he clearly agreed, his reasons achieve the required standard of adequacy.
Mr Puchooa made very extensive submissions on the appeal, but these focused in large part on the underlying merits of his dispute with his local authority (and indeed extraneous matters) rather than identifying errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s strike out decision.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal
- The background to this appeal is that Mr Puchooa has, since at least mid-2018, been concerned about anti-social behaviour ( “ASB” ) in the street where he lives. He entered into correspondence with va
- On 20 June 2022, in exercise of his rights under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( “FOIA” ), Mr Puchooa made a request to his local authority for certain information concerning the in
- On 5 May 2023 the Information Commissioner issued Decision Notice IC-199663-K9B6 (the “Decision Notice” ). In the Decision Notice the Information Commissioner accepted the local authority’s evidence t
- The permission stage
- The parties’ positions
- Why there was no oral hearing of this appeal
- Why I have allowed this appeal
- Conclusions