Mr Peter Wilson v The Information Commissioner: [2026] UKUT 199 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Butler on 18 May 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) provided the appellant with a ‘gist’ of the withheld closed material but not before dismissing his appeal. The appellant had no meaningful opportunity to respond to the gist before his appeal was decided. The Upper Tribunal decided the FTT’s approach was procedurally irregular and failed to do its utmost to minimise the disadvantage to the appellant of closed material being withheld from him (Browning v (1) Information Commissioner and (2) Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [2014] EWCA Civ 1050 and Barrett v (1) Information Commissioner and (2) Financial Ombudsman Service [2024] UKUT 107 (AAC)).
The FTT also failed adequately to explain to the appellant how the closed material procedure would operate for an appeal determined on the papers. The appellant was therefore unable to make an informed choice between continuing to have his appeal determined on the papers and requesting an oral hearing of his appeal. This was also a procedural irregularity.
The FTT failed to demonstrate it had taken the structural approach towards regulation 12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 set out in Highways England Company Ltd v Information Commissioner and Henry Manisty [2019] AACR 17.
The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis the above errors of law were material and remitted the appeal to a new FTT to decide.