Browning v Information Commissioner and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1050, [2014] All ER (D) 04 (Aug)
The claimant submitted that the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/1976) (the Rules) did not and, as a matter of vires, could not permit the exclusion of a legal representative who was willing to give an undertaking as to confidentiality. He alternatively submitted that, even if such an interpretation was a tenable one, it should be resisted because the fundamental principles of open justice and natural justice demanded a more restrictive interpretation. Section 22, and paras 7(g), 11(1) and 16 of Sch 5 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (the 2007 Act), and rr 5(3)(g) and 35 of the Rules were considered.
The court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Rules, in particular rr 5(3)(g) and 35 of the Rules, fell within the vires conferred by s 22, and paras 7(g), 11(1) and 16 of Sch 5 to the 2007 Act. On the face of it, they permitted the procedure that had been adopted by the FTT in the present case.
