![[2024] UKUT 134 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The FTT decision
The FTT decision
This is an appeal against the FTT decision, which was a decision to strike out Mr Burton’s appeal under rule 8(3)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case succeeding). The FTT decision was made “on the papers” i.e. without a hearing.
At [2], the FTT decision recorded that IC’s decision notice had found that “the burden of complying with [Mr Burton’s information request to DHSC] would be ‘grossly oppressive’ so as to satisfy s14(1)” (vexatious or repeated requests).
At [4], the FTT decision stated that Mr Burton’s grounds of appeal were
a challenge to the ‘cost of compliance’ (although s12 is not relied on in [IC’s decision notice]); (b) he states that he does not believe that DHSC did not hold a single summary report rather than the 166 reports which it found to fall within the scope of [Mr Burton’s] request; and (c) he submits that [IC] is engaged in medical censorship. I note that he does not in his grounds challenge [IC’s decision notice’s] findings as to the nature of the burden on the public authority.”
After citing paragraph 41 of HMRC v Fairford Group plc [2014] UKUT 329 at [6], the FTT decision at [7] said that, applying that approach, it concluded
“… that this is a case which may be described as ‘not fit for a full hearing’. This is because the role of the [FTT] under s57 is to decide whether there is an error of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion in [IC’s decision notice]. The grounds of appeal simply do not engage with that jurisdiction. Although he takes issue with DHSC and [IC], [Mr Burton] has not presented an argument which engages the [FTT’s] jurisdiction”.