Edward Williams v Information Commissioner & Anor

Edward Williams v Information Commissioner & Anor

Parts A to C of the closed witness statement should not remain closed as they were disclosed in full in the gist provided to the Appellant. The Tribunal's notification under Rule 14(8) was adequate as the Appellant was notified when the order was sent.

Parties
Appellant: Edward Williams; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Review of Rule 14(6) Order
Outcome
Original Rule 14(6) order set aside and varied; application for Rule 14 order granted only in relation to undisclosed material; remainder of original order remains in force.
Legal Topics
Closed Material Procedures, Disclosure, Tribunal Procedure, Rule 14 Orders
Information Law Administrative Law Closed Material Procedures Disclosure Tribunal Procedure Rule 14 Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Williams

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Home Office

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Review of Rule 14(6) Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts A to C of the closed witness statement should remain closed
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal complied with Rule 14(8) regarding notification of the application

Ratio Decidendi

Parts A to C of the closed witness statement should not remain closed as they were disclosed in full in the gist provided to the Appellant. The Tribunal's notification under Rule 14(8) was adequate as the Appellant was notified when the order was sent.

Court Disposition

Original Rule 14(6) order set aside and varied; application for Rule 14 order granted only in relation to undisclosed material; remainder of original order remains in force.

Orders

  • Second Respondent’s application for a Rule 14 Order in relation to the closed witness statement of Dr Anuj Mathew is granted only for material not provided in the gist of 23 March 2026.
  • Text from sections A, B and C as set out in the gist are not held under rule 14(6).