![[2024] UKUT 178 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal, taken on 15 February 2021 under case reference EA 2020/0252, involved the making of an error on a point of law. Under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Upper Tribunal sets aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. Under section 12(2)(b)(i) of the 2007 Act, the Upper Tribunal remits this case to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the following directions:
The First-tier Tribunal is to re-decide Mr Dally’s appeal against a decision notice given by the Information Commissioner on Mr Dally’s complaint against Knowsley Council’s refusal to disclose certain information to him under theFreedom of Information Act 2000.
The appeal is to be decided by a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal.
The First-tier Tribunal is to hold a hearing before deciding Mr Dally’s appeal.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal
- If either party wishes to rely on any further written evidence or submissions, these are to be received by the First-tier Tribunal within one month of the date on which this decision is issued
- Directions (3) and (4) above may be varied by direction given by the First-tier Tribunal
- Background
- 14 February 2019, the RSPCA wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive
- 19 February 2019 at 14:19, a Council official emailed DEFRA
- 19 February 2019 at 15:07, a DEFRA official responded by email to the Council’s email of the same date
- 20 February 2019, a Council official emailed Mr Dally
- The Information Commissioner’s decision
- First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- disclosure of old legal advice would not assist in resolving any problems at MDH
- Legislative background
- Environmental protection legislation (stray dogs)
- Grounds of appeal
- The Commissioner’s arguments
- General principles
- Specific arguments
- even if the Upper Tribunal were to find a public interest in disclosure, that would not invalidate the Tribunal’s conclusion that disclosure would “erode the principle of legal professional privilege”
- Appellant’s arguments
- the supposed third formulation of the alleged misrepresentation – the Council said that the previous legal advice related to the 2018 Regulations rather than the 1963 Act regime – is styled by the Com
- Ground 1
- MDH continued to operate without a license despite kennelling stray dogs for up to 24 hours
- another local authority has required Animal Wardens Ltd, which sub-contracts with MDH, to seek a licence the Charity Commission took enforcement action to address a conflict of interests between Animal Wardens Ltd and MDH
- Closed session of hearing
- Conclusions