![[2025] UKUT 066 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Responses to the grant of permission
Responses to the grant of permission
In response to the grant of permission of appeal, IC concluded that it was of the view that the FTT should have adequately explained its position as to whether the four documents listed in the permission decision were within scope; and that it erred in not doing so. IC did not, therefore, oppose the appeal. HSE did, however, oppose the appeal.
I am grateful to both Mrs O’Hanlon and Mr Tabori for their written and oral submissions. I will refer to them, only as far as necessary to explain my decision, as part of the following section of this decision.
- Heading
- The appeal is allowed in part
- References in what follows to
- References to numbers in square brackets are (unless the context indicates otherwise) to paragraphs of the FTT’s decision The decision of the FTT
- set out a chronology, as follows
- At [2], the FTT stated that the appeal concerned Mrs O’Hanlon’s contention that
- The grant of permission to appeal
- Responses to the grant of permission
- The Upper Tribunal’s analysis
- Why the FTT erred in finding that HSE held no other information within scope of Mrs O’Hanlon’s request
- Whether the FTT’s error was material
- Email of 24 March 2020 from A Ltd to HSE
- Email from A Ltd to HSE of 17 March 2020
- Prohibition notice served on the site developer on 6 April 2020
- Notification of contravention letters served against Amark
- Conclusions