Upper Tribunal Consultation Alert

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) hears a lot of information rights appeals. What not all users of the UT, or readers of this blog, may have realised is that not all of its decisions – despite it being an appellate jurisdiction – are published online rendering them accessible to those interested in the area. Still fewer are then selected for reporting in the Administrative Appeals Case Reports, although we have our doubts whether anyone really uses the AACR. Is it time for a change of approach? Continue reading

‘Stayin’ Appeals’ by the FTTGees – The Hottest Ticket(Master) in Town

The first major GDPR penalty notice appeal – Ticketmaster UK Ltd v Information Commissioner (EA/2020/0359/FP) – has been stayed by order of the First-tier Tribunal until 28 days after the handing down of judgment in civil litigation brought against Ticketmaster by some 795 Ticketmaster customers: Collins & Others v Ticketmaster UK Ltd (BL-2019-LIV-000007). Continue reading

EIR: Court of Justice gives guidance on the internal communications exception in Land Baden-Württemberg v DR

The Court of Justice recently gave guidance on the “internal communications” exception in the Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC. It gave its views on the principle that exceptions should be interpreted restrictively and the relevance of the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide (tl;dr – internal is the opposite of external, to be a communication information has to be shared, there is no time limit on the exception, and neither the principle nor the Guide makes any difference to the outcome in the end).

Continue reading

Disclosure of Leakers

A potentially interesting judgment was handed down orally this morning by Tipples J, rejecting an application from a former Labour Party official to force the Labour Party to disclose the identity of those it believed leaked an internal report concerning the Party’s approach to antisemitism and the conduct of various officials. The Applicant, Ms Oldknow, whose data was contained in the leaked report, wished to uncover the identities of those individuals in order to bring proceedings against them. Continue reading