![[2025] UKUT 066 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Upper Tribunal’s analysis
The Upper Tribunal’s analysis
My analysis, in overview, is that
the FTT decision did err in law to find that HSE held no other information within the scope of Mrs O’Hanlon’s information request, given that it held emails to HSE from A Ltd from March 2020, a prohibition notice served on the site developer, and notification of contravention letters served against Amark;
that error was not material, in that it did not ultimately make a difference to the outcome of the appeal, in relation to the emails to HSE from A Ltd from March 2020 and the prohibition notice served on the site developer;
the error was, however, material in relation to the contravention letters served against Amark.
- 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