Moss v The Upper Tribunal [2024] EWCA Civ 1414 (15 November 2024)

Moss v The Upper Tribunal [2024] EWCA Civ 1414 (15 November 2024)

The judge erred in law by failing to properly consider or explain why the appellant's stated reason for seeking disclosure did not meet the threshold required by the open justice principle as set out in Dring. The appellant's reason, though brief, was sufficient to meet the low threshold for non-party access to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1414
Parties
Appellant: Derek Moss; Respondent: The Upper Tribunal; Interested Party: The Information Commissioner; Interested Party: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; Interested Party: Liam Harron
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Upper Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Access to Court Documents, Non Party Disclosure, Freedom of Information, Tribunal Procedure
Civil Procedure Information Law Administrative Law Open Justice Access to Court Documents Non Party Disclosure Freedom of Information Tribunal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Moss

Appellant

The Upper Tribunal

Respondent

The Information Commissioner

Interested Party

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Interested Party

Liam Harron

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-party is entitled to access written submissions and skeleton arguments from tribunal proceedings under the open justice principle
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to provide such documents breached Article 6 and Article 10 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by failing to properly consider or explain why the appellant's stated reason for seeking disclosure did not meet the threshold required by the open justice principle as set out in Dring. The appellant's reason, though brief, was sufficient to meet the low threshold for non-party access to written submissions, and there were no countervailing factors justifying refusal. The refusal was therefore unlawful and the appeal must be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appellant is to be granted access to the written submissions and skeleton arguments from the Upper Tribunal proceedings.