Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Liam Harron & Anor

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Liam Harron & Anor

The application was refused because Mr Moss did not show a good reason why disclosure of the parties’ written submissions and skeleton arguments would advance the open justice principle, especially as the public judgment already set out the parties’ arguments in detail. The absence of a Rule 14 direction does not create an entitlement. Proportionality also weighed against disclosure, as Mr Moss had not approached the parties directly, and his reasons were insufficient.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; Respondent/applicant: Liam Harron; Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Non Party Applicant: Derek Moss
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Application by Non Party for Disclosure of Documents in Upper Tribunal Proceedings / Post Judgment Application for Disclosure
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Third Party Access to Court Documents, Freedom of Information, Tribunal Procedure
Administrative Law Information Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Third Party Access to Court Documents Freedom of Information 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Appellant/respondent

Liam Harron

Respondent/applicant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Derek Moss

Non Party Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application by Non Party for Disclosure of Documents in Upper Tribunal Proceedings / Post Judgment Application for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-party is entitled to disclosure of parties’ written submissions and skeleton arguments from Upper Tribunal proceedings
  2. 2 Application of the open justice principle to non-party access to tribunal documents
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a Rule 14 direction entitles a non-party to documents

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because Mr Moss did not show a good reason why disclosure of the parties’ written submissions and skeleton arguments would advance the open justice principle, especially as the public judgment already set out the parties’ arguments in detail. The absence of a Rule 14 direction does not create an entitlement. Proportionality also weighed against disclosure, as Mr Moss had not approached the parties directly, and his reasons were insufficient.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The application by Mr Moss for disclosure of the parties’ written submissions and skeleton arguments is refused.
  • A copy of this decision shall be sent to Mr Moss and the parties.