Kelway, R (on the application of) v The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) [2013] EWHC 2575 (Admin) (20 August 2013)

Kelway, R (on the application of) v The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) [2013] EWHC 2575 (Admin) (20 August 2013)

The claim for permission to apply for judicial review was dismissed as out of time and no good reason for extension was established. On the merits, the Upper Tribunal's decisions were flawed, but the underlying document was correctly found to be the personal data of both the claimant and the district judge, and was not disclosable under FOIA or DPA. The closed procedure did not result in unfairness sufficient to warrant intervention.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2575 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Peter Stuart Kelway; First Defendant: The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber); Second Defendant: Northumbria Police; Interested Party: The Information Commissioner; Defendant (second Claim): Independent Police Complaints Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application and Substantive Determination
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused; all disclosure applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Procedure, Disclosure of Personal Data, FOIA and DPA Overlap, Tribunal Appeals, Extension of Time, Article 6 ECHR
Administrative Law Data Protection Law Freedom of Information Judicial Review Procedure Disclosure of Personal Data FOIA and DPA Overlap Tribunal Appeals Extension of Time +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Peter Stuart Kelway

Claimant

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)

First Defendant

Northumbria Police

Second Defendant

The Information Commissioner

Interested Party

Independent Police Complaints Commission

Defendant (second Claim)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application and Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to permission to apply for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal decisions
  2. 2 Whether the relevant witness statement was disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Data Protection Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether time for filing the Cart claim should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for permission to apply for judicial review was dismissed as out of time and no good reason for extension was established. On the merits, the Upper Tribunal's decisions were flawed, but the underlying document was correctly found to be the personal data of both the claimant and the district judge, and was not disclosable under FOIA or DPA. The closed procedure did not result in unfairness sufficient to warrant intervention.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused; all disclosure applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • No extension of time for filing the Cart claim is granted.