Background
Mr Fares sought records from the Department of Social Protection under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 concerning a review of his disability allowance. After the Department released further material during the Information Commissioner’s review, it maintained that no additional records existed or could be found after reasonable searches. The Commissioner affirmed that refusal under s. 15(1)(a) of the Act.
Mr Fares appealed to the High Court under s. 24, which permits an appeal on a point of law only. He then sought to change the Department’s status from notice party to co-respondent, intending to raise grievances about the Department’s treatment of him, the completeness and integrity of his records, and its handling of his FOI request. The High Court refused joinder. He appealed that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s order. The Department was not a necessary party to determining the statutory appeal as it stood: the only issue was whether the Commissioner’s decision was affected by an error of law.
An appeal under s. 24 is not a fresh factual hearing. The Commissioner is the final fact-finder on whether further records exist, subject to legal review. Mr Fares’s proposed joinder sought to litigate factual disputes and wider complaints about the Department that were outside the Commissioner’s statutory remit and would introduce separate causes of action into a confined statutory appeal. The Court also rejected allegations that the High Court hearing had been unfair.
Key Takeaways
- An FOI appeal to the High Court under s. 24 of the 2014 Act is confined to errors of law.
- Joinder cannot be used to add new and extraneous disputes to a statutory appeal.
- Disagreement with the Commissioner’s factual conclusion about the existence of records does not itself create a High Court appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow scope of High Court review of Information Commissioner decisions. Parties cannot turn a point-of-law appeal into a wider inquiry into an FOI body’s conduct, recordkeeping, or factual treatment of a requester.
The Court listed the issue of appeal costs for later determination, while noting that the successful Commissioner and Department were presumptively entitled to costs.