Christian Herman v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Christian Herman v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The First-tier Tribunal materially erred in law by failing to consider the central importance of the appellant's right to attend the hearing and the reasons for his absence, and by focusing solely on the merits of the appeal rather than the interests of justice. The absence was not the appellant's fault, relevant evidence was not before the tribunal, and no actual prejudice from delay was shown. The decision must be set aside and remitted for rehearing.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Christian Herman; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Chief Constable of Kent Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) (information Rights)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Tribunal Procedure
Administrative Law Information Law Data Protection Freedom of Information Personal Data Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Tribunal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Christian Herman

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Chief Constable of Kent Police

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) (information Rights)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by refusing to set aside its decision after the appellant was absent from the hearing through no fault of his own
  2. 2 Whether the interests of justice required the decision to be set aside due to procedural irregularity and breach of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal materially erred in law by failing to consider the central importance of the appellant's right to attend the hearing and the reasons for his absence, and by focusing solely on the merits of the appeal rather than the interests of justice. The absence was not the appellant's fault, relevant evidence was not before the tribunal, and no actual prejudice from delay was shown. The decision must be set aside and remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The decisions of the First-tier Tribunal dated 17 October 2017 and 31 August 2022 are set aside for material errors of law.
  • The First-tier Tribunal's decision of 17 October 2017 is set aside under rule 41 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.