[2024] UKUT 105 (AAC)

It therefore follows that we reject each of the alleged errors of law that the Information Commissioner advanced in respect of Ground 1. The FTT’s decision is neither well-structured nor well-reasoned, but for the reasons that we have identified, we are satisfied that applying the approach that the appellate authorities require us to take, there was no error of law in the FTT’s approach to these aspects of transparency. To a significant degree the points made to us by Mr Pitt-Payne were simply an attempt to take issue with the FTT’s evaluative assessments and to re-argue a case that was unsuccessful below. Insofar as Mr Pitt-Payne suggested that we should approach the Ground 1 errors cumulatively, the submission has no traction as we have not accepted that any of the alleged errors were made. However, we confirm that we kept in mind the full picture of the alleged errors when reaching our conclusions in respect of Ground 1.