Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 99 (AAC)

Fecha: 04-Sep-2024

The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2) (a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforc

The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, I set that decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered by the same tribunal in accordance with the law in this decision.

The second respondent’s application to be removed as a respondent is refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

This appeal concerns requests for information that the appellant made on 25 May 2022, 27 May 2022 and 1 June 2022 to the Second Respondent (the ONS). ONS refused the appellant’s requests relying on the exception in section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) for vexatious requests. The First Respondent (the IC) upheld ONS’s refusal in a decision notice dated 28 February 2023. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision notice.

The First-tier Tribunal at a hearing on 16 July 2024 determined that his appeal concerned only the request for information he made on 25 May 2022 (reference number DPR 188) and refused him permission to amend his appeal to include challenges to the IC’s decision in relation to the other two requests (reference numbers DPR 189 and 190).

The First-tier Tribunal, by reserved decision sent to the parties on 4 September 2024, otherwise allowed the appellant’s appeal in respect of DPR 188, concluded that the request was not vexatious and required ONS to issue a fresh response to the request made on 25 May 2022 which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.

The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal. I granted permission to appeal limited two grounds in a decision sent to the parties on 10 January 2025:

Ground (1): The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in holding that the appeal did not include a challenge to the ICO’s conclusion that DPRs 189 and 190 were requests within the meaning of section 1(1) of FOIA;

Ground (3): The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in not allowing the appellant to amend his appeal to include either or both those grounds.

The IC in his response to the appeal has conceded that the appeal should be allowed on both grounds. Both the IC and the appellant have agreed to a final decision being made by me on the papers, although they are not wholly in agreement as to how I should dispose of the appeal. ONS has requested to be removed as a respondent to the appeal. The appellant has objected to that. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to deal with all matters on the papers as the issues are straightforward and it would be disproportionate to hold an oral hearing. The remaining issues between the parties will be the subject of a further oral hearing before the First-tier Tribunal as a result of my decision in this matter.