Edward Williams v Information Commissioner & Anor
Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00540 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0313
First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Information Rights
Heard: on the papers in Chambers
Heard on: 2 April 2026
Decision given on: 10 April 2026
Before
Between
EDWARD WILLIAMS
Appellant
and
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
First Respondent
and
THE HOME OFFICE
Second Respondent
Decision:
Having considered the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal the Rule 14(6) Order dated 9 March 2026 relating to the closed witness statement, I review that decision and set it aside.
I make the following order: The Second Respondent’s application for a Rule 14 Order in relation to the closed witness statement of Dr Anuj Mathew is granted in relation to the material that was not provided in the gist of 23 March 2026 only. The text from sections A, B and C as set out in this gist are not held under rule 14(6). The remainder of the original Rule 14(6) order remains in force.
REASONS
The Appellant made an application for permission to appeal the case management directions of Judge Armstrong-Holmes dated 9 March 2026. These directions made a Rule 14(6) order in relation to certain closed material, including the entirety of the closed witness statement provided by the Second Respondent.
The Appellant applied for a gist of this statement to be provided to him. I made an order accordingly on 16 March. On 23 March the Second Respondent provided a gist of the closed statement which set out the full text of parts A to C of the statement, and a summary gist of the remainder of the statement.
The Appellant says that there was no good reason for parts A to C to be kept in closed. He also says that the Tribunal failed to comply with Rule 14(8) and did not notify him that the application had been made.
I agree that parts A to C of the closed statement should not remain as closed material, as they had been disclosed in full by the Second Respondent in the gist. I have reviewed the original decision on this basis, set it aside and made a new order in relation to the closed witness statement.
Rule 14(8) says, “Unless the Tribunal considers that there is good reason not to do so, the Tribunal must send notice that a party has made an application for a direction under paragraph (6) to each other party.” This does not require the notice to be sent before the application has been decided, and the Appellant was notified about the fact of the application when the Rule 14 order was sent on 9 March 2026.