Matalia v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2023] UKFTT 285 (GRC) (13 March 2023)

Matalia v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2023] UKFTT 285 (GRC) (13 March 2023)

The applicant's costs application was made out of time under Rule 10(4) and there is no basis to exercise discretion to extend time; even if in time, the University did not act unreasonably in making its own costs application.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] UKFTT 285 (GRC)
Parties
Applicant: Amit Matalia; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The University of Cambridge
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights / Ruling on Costs After Substantive Decision and Prior Costs Application
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Unreasonable Conduct, Time Limits for Applications
Administrative Law Information Rights Tribunal Procedure Costs Unreasonable Conduct Time Limits for Applications

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amit Matalia

Applicant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The University of Cambridge

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights / Ruling on Costs After Substantive Decision and Prior Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's costs application against the University of Cambridge was made within the time limits prescribed by Rule 10(4) of the 2009 Rules
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should exercise discretion to extend time for the costs application
  3. 3 Whether the University acted unreasonably in bringing its own application for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's costs application was made out of time under Rule 10(4) and there is no basis to exercise discretion to extend time; even if in time, the University did not act unreasonably in making its own costs application.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed