[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Information Tribunal including the National Security Appeals Panel
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Information Tribunal including the National Security Appeals Panel >> Barber v The Information Commissioner [2006] UKIT EA_2005_0004 (20 February 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0004.html Cite as: [2006] UKIT EA_2005_0004, [2006] UKIT EA_2005_4

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

 


Information Tribunal

Appeal Number: EA/2005/0004 FS50064001

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 (FOIA)

Heard on Papers

on 30 January 2006

Decision Promulgated 20 February 2006

Before

INFORMATION TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN

John Angel

and

LAY MEMBERS

Malcolm Clarke and Suzanne Cosgrave

Between

	EDWARD ANTHONY BARBER	Appellant
	and
	THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER	Respondent

DECISION

Subseauent Decision

Following our Decision dated 11 November 2005 (Decision), we have now heard from the lnformation Commissioner that he has reviewed the information received by the Appellant and is of the view that there is no further information that could be provided by the Inland Revenue, now known as HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). We have read all the information supplied to us by the lnformation Commissioner which has been sent to us in accordance with paragraph 14 of our Decision. We have also received a copy of the Appellant's letter of 29 December 2005 fo the Commissioner's office where he, in effect, accepts that the HMRC has now complied with his original request. Therefore we are now able to consider what decision notice to issue in substitution to the decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner dated 16 May 2005.

Substituted Decision Notice

Under section 58(1) of FOIA the Tribunal has power to substitute its own decision notice where it considers:

(a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or

(b) to the extent that the not~ce involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently.

The Tribunal's decision is that HRMC shall provide the information requested by the Appellant in relation to the request in his letter dated 3 February 2005 and subsequentiy clarified in his letters of 19 and 22 February 2005 for the reasons set out in the Decision. However as HMRC has now provided the information, no further steps need be taken.

Dated the 17^th day of February 2006

John Angel

Chairman