[2025] UKUT 319 (AAC)

On 05 June 2025, Clearview filed a reply to the skeleton argument provided by Privacy International. In a letter dated 05 June 2025, the ICO objected to this, on the basis the submissions had been filed without permission, without forewarning and without explanation. It invited the Upper Tribunal to disregard the submissions as inadmissible, or (failing which) to reduce Clearview’s time for oral submissions, to enable the other parties to address the new document.

At the hearing, the Chamber President, Mrs Justice Heather Williams, explained that we had read the relevant correspondence and the submissions from Clearview, that we regarded them as admissible, and we derived assistance from at least some of their contents. As the Chamber President observed, we considered it less of an ambush to the other parties for Clearview to have put these matters in writing, rather than simply set them out in oral submissions.

In our assessment, the written reply from Clearview clarified matters, not least because some of the arguments made by the ICO and Privacy International were conditional on whether Clearview was taking a specific position (which the ICO and Privacy International considered to be unclear). The reply from Clearview helped identify what remained in issue between the parties. We decided that admitting the written reply would best further the overriding objective in terms of dealing with the appeal in a way that was proportionate to the importance of the case and the complexity of the issues.

We accommodated the other parties’ need to respond to the written reply. This included giving Privacy International an additional 10 minutes for oral submissions, as Ms Demetriou KC had requested.