Tribunal dismisses appeal over data request

Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Over Data Request

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) delivered its decision on 27 March 2025, dismissing the appeal brought by John Mitchell against the Information Commissioner and the Partners of St Neots Surgery. The case revolved around a Freedom of Information request made by Mr Mitchell, which sought various pieces of information from the surgery, including historical cancer statistics and other health-related data.

The appeal was heard remotely on 10 March 2025, with District Judge Watkin presiding. Mr Mitchell represented himself, while the Information Commissioner did not attend, and Ms Wilsdon of counsel represented St Neots Surgery.

Mr Mitchell's request, initially made on 25 January 2023, was partially fulfilled by the surgery, which disclosed some statistical information for the period 2018 to 2021. However, the surgery indicated it did not hold earlier information. The Information Commissioner's decision notice, dated 9 June 2023, found that the surgery had breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by not communicating all the relevant information it held and by responding outside the statutory time frame.

The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on several factors. Firstly, it found that the Information Commissioner's decision notice was sufficient to meet the requirements of Mr Mitchell's request. The Tribunal noted that the surgery held information in financial year batches, which aligned with the request's timeframe.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that Mr Mitchell's appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success. It found that his arguments, including claims that the decision notice was incorrect and that the surgery had not complied with its requirements, were not substantiated. The Tribunal advised Mr Mitchell that any non-compliance by the surgery should be addressed through enforcement action by the Information Commissioner.

The Tribunal also addressed procedural issues, noting that Mr Mitchell had failed to provide necessary documentation and applications as directed in previous case management directions. This failure contributed to the Tribunal's decision to strike out the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings and the necessity for appellants to clearly articulate the basis of their appeals. The case highlights the challenges individuals face when navigating complex information rights issues and the role of the Tribunal in ensuring compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Learn More

For more information on data protection, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.

Copyright & permissions