Posted by: John Brace | 20th May 2019

Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley grants limited permission to appeal First-tier Tribunal (GRC) costs order

Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley grants limited permission to appeal First-tier Tribunal (GRC) costs order

Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0033)

Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0054)

I’ll declare an interest in this matter as I’m one of the parties to the case (the Appellant).

In an update to a story from January 2019 headlined Why did the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) take over 2 years to decide on a permission to appeal request?, the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) has now made a decision on permission to appeal, after a request by myself for permission to appeal was renewed to it.

The case number changes from First-tier Tribunal (GRC) case EA/2016/0054 to Upper Tribunal (AAC) case GIA/619/2019.

The Upper Tribunal received the renewed permission to appeal on the 21st February 2019, reached a decision on it dated 26th March 2019 which was received by myself as a party on the 13th April 2019.

So what took the First-tier Tribunal (GRC) 536 working days (or just over 2 years) took the Upper Tribunal (AAC) 37 working days (or just under 2 months).

Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley granted limited permission to appeal on grounds 1 and 3. He also decided that the matter could be dealt with on the papers.

Notice of appeal was served on the other parties (Information Commissioner and Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) in mid April 2019.

I’m now referred to as the Appellant in the matter rather than Applicant.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.


Responses

  1. The whole law system in our country needs overhauling, just so out of date!

    • It gets overhauled all the time – new laws are made, old laws are repealed, decisions in new legal cases are used to decide even newer ones etc.

      There are many problems the UK judiciary and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service face though whether the courts, tribunals, criminal, civil or other.

      Maybe it seems old fashioned, but there is a comfort some people find in tradition and predictability. I suppose I understand parts of it better than the average person as I report on court cases and tribunal cases.

      Concepts like fairness, justice and human rights still matter to some people.

      The law is supposed to act as a deterrent to people doing things they shouldn’t (or failing to do things they should).

      The justice system in this country is changing day by day – sometimes in the direction of one step back before two steps forward.

  2. So what’s the next stage of this (lengthy) process? You can now make moves to submit your appeal under the grounds allowed? MFRA seem overly keen to be as opaque as possible with access to information.

    • Thanks for your comment.

      The Notice of Appeal has already been sent to myself and the other two Respondents in mid-April 2019 by the Upper Tribunal along with the main bundle, supplementary bundle and case management directions.

      The case management directions of Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley dated 26th March 2019 answer your first question and are as follows:-

      GIA/619/2019

      CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

      1. The parties are as set out at the head of this ruling.

      2. The Upper Tribunal office is to issue the parties with two bundles:

      (I) The main bundle comprises the Applicant’s application in GIA/619/2019 with associated annexes. All further submissions and directions will be added to this bundle sequentially. The Upper Tribunal office has the sole responsibility for organising the main bundle and paginating it.

      (II) The supplementary bundle comprises a selection prepared from the much larger bundle in the now withdrawn application GIA/2503/2017 and represents the key documents in the case. This bundle is complete for present purposes and is provided as context to GIA/619/2019.

      3. The parties must keep to the following sequence.

      4. First the First Respondent (the Information Commissioner) is asked to provide a Response to the Appeal within one month of the date on which this notice is sent to the parties. The Response should include an indication as to whether the Commissioner seeks an oral hearing of the appeal.

      5. Second, the Second Respondent (MFRA) is asked to provide a Response to the Appeal within one month of the date on which the First Respondent’s Response is sent to it.

      6. Third, the Appellant is asked to provide a Reply to the Response within one month of the date on which the last such Response is sent to him.

      7. Further case management directions will follow as necessary.

      (Signed on the original)
      Nicholas Wikeley
      Judge of the Upper Tribunal

      (Dated) 26 March 2019


Categories