![[2024] UKUT 206 (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 struck out Mrs Farnsworth’s appeal against the challenged IC decision.
The challenged IC decision related to one item in an information request made by Mrs Farnsworth on 11 November 2021 to her local borough council, relating to a planning application she had made: the request itself described the requested information as the “DLP report” for a particular planning reference (“DLP” was shorthand for DLP Planning Ltd, a company that had contracted with the council to deal with planning applications – more will be said about this in what follows). The FTT decision described the requested information as a “draft report”; and decided that it was covered by the exception (to the duty to disclose environmental information) in regulation 12(4)(d) – i.e. that the request related to material still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data.
The FTT decision, at [4], summarised Mrs Farnsworth’s grounds of appeal (box 5a of her FTT appeal form) as
querying only one paragraph in the challenged IC decision (paragraph 35); and
suggesting (in box 6 of the form, asking the outcome sought) that Mrs Farnsworth should be able to see whether the requested information (the “draft report”, as the FTT decision called it) contained any consideration of alternative proposals which would have assisted a (new) application for planning permission which Mrs Farnsworth was contemplating making.
At [5], summarising Mrs Farnsworth’s response to IC’s application to have her appeal struck out, the FTT decision said that Mrs Farnsworth had said she just wanted a judge to look at the “draft report” and tell her about it.
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 and s58 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (applicable to the [regulations]) 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 but seek to use the [FTT] as a vehicle for further disclosure.”
At [8], the FTT decision added that no tribunal properly directed could allow Mrs Farnsworth’s appeal “because it does not suggest any error of law in [IC’s decision notice]” and Mrs Farnsworth sought a remedy which the FTT may not provide.