[2025] UKUT 066 (AAC)

Mr Tabori pointed out that HSE’s skeleton argument in the FTT proceedings had an appendix which stated that this document was available online (there was a footnote with a hyperlink); and the same information was contained in the 26 August 2020 notice of contravention. Mr Tabori submitted that requests for information that is publicly available are ‘manifestly unreasonable’ within the meaning of regulation 12(4)(b).

It seems to me that regulation 6(1)(b) is in point: where the information is requested in a particular form, a public authority must provide it in that form unless the information is already publicly available and easily accessible to the applicant in another form or format. It seems clear that this information was so available. It follows that, even if the FTT had not erred in finding that this prohibition notice was outwith Mrs Hanlon’s request, the FTT would have been bound to conclude that HSE had complied with its regulation 5(1) obligations with respect to it (i.e. made it available, albeit in a different form or format).

At the hearing, Mrs O’Hanlon said that this document had in fact already been disclosed to her, in 2022, following the FTT hearing. This means that, even there had been a material error here, it would not have been just for the Upper Tribunal to use its powers to set aside the FTT’s decision on account of it (as that would be pointless, in the circumstances).