[2025] UKUT 74 (AAC)

The appellant argues that the First-tier Tribunal erred in not specifically concluding that the Commissioner was subject to a duty of candour in section 166 applications when Judge Neville at an earlier case management stage had stated that the duty of candour did apply when refusing an application by the appellant for specific disclosure. The appellant further contends that the First-tier Tribunal treated the Commissioner as not being subject to the duty of candour because at [13] of the decision, the Tribunal took the Commissioner ‘at his word’ regarding what investigative steps had been carried out. The appellant considers that the duty of candour ought to have been applied and the Commissioner/ICO required to provide full disclosure and witness statements detailing his investigation and putting the 7 February 2023 email in context.

The Commissioner in response submits that he is not subject to a duty of candour in relation to section 166 applications because there is no authority to this effect and it would be inappropriate to imply such a duty given the procedural nature of the application.