Information Commissioner v Dr Gary Spiers and Garstang Medical Practice
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wright |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 93 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Information rights - Information rights: practice,procedure,Tribunal procedure,practice - tribunal membership,Wright,S |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 11 April 2022 |
Information Commissioner v Dr Gary Spiers and Garstang Medical Practice
[2022] UKUT 93 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL UT ref: UA-2021-001702-GIA
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
On appeal from First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Information Rights)
Between: The Information Commissioner Appellant
- v –
Dr Gary Spiers First Respondent
and
Garstang Medical Practice Second Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Wright
Decision date: 24 March 2022
Decided after an oral hearing on 26 November 2021
Representation: Rupert Paines of counsel for the appellant
Neither respondent appeared at the hearing but Dr Spiers filed
written submissions for the hearing
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The ruling given by the
First-tier Tribunal on 8 November 2021 under case number EJ/2021/0001 was made
in error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 I set that decision aside and give the ruling the First-tier
Tribunal should have given. That ruling is not to join the Information Commissioner to
the proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal under reference EJ/2021/0001.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. I apologise to the parties for the time it has taken me to make my decision on
this appeal. This was caused, albeit only in part, by a period of ill-health on my part.
Information Commissioner v Dr Gary Spiers and Garstang Medical Practice
[2022] UKUT 93 (AAC)
Case no: UA-2021-001702-GIA
2
2. The appeal is brought by the Information Commissioner against a ruling made
by the First-tier Tribunal on 8 February 2021 (“the tribunal”). The ruling was made in
proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal in which Dr Spiers was applying for an
offence of contempt to be certified by the First-tier Tribunal under rule 7A of the
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
(“the GRC Rules”). Dr Spiers alleges that the Garstang Medical Practice has failed
to comply with the Decision Notice substituted by the First-tier Tribunal in case
EA/2019/0137.
3. This decision of the Upper Tribunal is not about whether the Garstang Medical
Practice (“Garstang”) has failed to comply with the substituted Decision Notice. Nor is
it about whether Garstang should or should not be certified for contempt under rule
7A. Those matters remain to be addressed by the First-tier Tribunal.
4. What this decision concerns is whether it was lawful for the First-tier Tribunal (a)
to join, under rule 9 of the GRC Rules, the Information Commissioner to the rule 7A
‘certification for contempt’ proceedings (assuming the Information Commissioner was
not already a party to those proceedings), and (b) require the Information
Commissioner to make submissions in those proceedings including submissions on
“whether or not, and on what grounds, the Information Commissioner supports the
application to certify an offence of contempt as regards Garstang Medical Practice”.
Relevant background
5. It was a registrar of the First-tier Tribunal acting under delegated authority who
made the first decision joining the Information Commissioner to the rule 7A
certification for contempt proceedings between the two respondents to this Upper
Tribunal appeal. That decision was made on 6 January 2021. The reasons given by
the registrar for so doing were (in summary): the Information Commissioner is
responsible for regulating the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”); Dr Spiers is
alleging an offence by one of the public authorities which the Information
Commissioner regulates under FOIA; and, as ‘regulator’, the First-tier Tribunal
considered that that the Information Commissioner should participate in the rule 7A
contempt proceedings and give appropriate input about whether a body he regulates
should, or should not, be certified for a breach of the legislation for which he is the
allocated regulator. The decision also required the Information Commissioner to
make submissions on the rule 7A contempt proceedings within a certain period of
time. Those submissions were to include submissions on the matters set out at the
end of paragraph four above.
6. It is worth noting at this stage, as important background, the decision of the
Upper Tribunal in Information Commissioner v Moss and the Royal Borough of
Kingston upon Thames [2020] UKUT 174 (AAC). With his customary economy and
conciseness, Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs summarised the issue on that appeal and
his decision on it as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial