Tribunal rules on Eamonn Brophy's appeal

In the case of Eamonn Brophy versus The Information Commissioner, the First-tier Tribunal has issued a significant decision regarding the timeliness of Brophy’s appeal application against the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This determination is particularly important as it relates to Brophy's notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the ICO on 5 September 2024. Brophy submitted an application for leave to admit his Notice of Appeal late on 23 April 2025, exceeding the procedural timeframe established by relevant rules.

The crux of the case arose when Brophy appealed against an ICO’s Decision Notice (IC-288427-D8T5) concerning how the London Borough of Hillingdon handled his request for information. His inquiry revolved around the meaning of ‘anti-social behaviour’ as defined by the Council, which had dismissed his request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). After reviewing the situation, the ICO upheld the Council’s stance, leading to Brophy’s subsequent appeal.

The Tribunal found that Brophy did not adhere to the necessary timeline for submitting his appeal, as outlined in Rule 22 of the 2009 procedural rules, which stipulates that appeals must be made within 28 days of an ICO decision. Since Brophy’s appeal was lodged 123 days after the original notice, Judge Saward, overseeing the Tribunal, ruled that the application was indeed late.

Judge Saward highlighted that, although there is discretion to extend the appeal period, several key factors govern such decisions. The Tribunal relied on principles from the case of Denton v T H White Limited, following a three-stage approach to assess the delay. This evaluation included acknowledging the severity of the delay, investigating the reasons for it, and considering the overall circumstances surrounding the case.

Brophy argued that the delays were largely outside his control, asserting that he attempted to resolve the matter directly with the Council instead of seeking help from public sector resources. However, the Tribunal countered this by emphasising that the importance of following procedural timelines cannot be overlooked. The ICO had provided detailed information on the appeal process within its Decision Notice, indicating the timeline within which the appeal should have commenced.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that despite Brophy’s claims of being inadequately informed about the appeal procedures, the significant impact of the delay on the Tribunal's efficient functioning justified the refusal to extend the appeal period. The ruling underscored the necessity of upholding procedural compliance and the implications of failing to act within designated timeframes in legal processes.

In closing, citing the principle of finality in litigation and the need for efficient case management, Judge Saward denied the application for an extension, concluding that Brophy’s appeal would not be accepted. This judgement serves as a crucial reminder of the essential nature of procedural compliance and timely actions within the legal system, particularly within the realm of information rights. The official recording of the decision on 2 May 2025 reinforces the Tribunal’s commitment to maintaining orderly and established legal protocols.

Copyright & permissions