Jonathan Barrett v The Information Commissioner

Facts

The appellant, Jonathan Barrett, asked the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for documents exchanged between FOS and the Financial Conduct Authority, before or at the time of implementation, that related to changes to the grounds on which an ombudsman may dismiss a complaint without considering its merits. FOS refused the request, relying on section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Mr Barrett complained to the Information Commissioner, whose Decision Notice FS50863534 of 20 January 2020 held that section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was engaged for all the withheld information. The Commissioner did not consider the other exemptions. Mr Barrett appealed under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The First-tier Tribunal first heard the appeal on the papers and dismissed it. The Upper Tribunal allowed Mr Barrett's appeal in Barrett v The Information Commissioner & Financial Ombudsman Service [2024] UKUT 107 (AAC), because the First-tier Tribunal had failed to minimise, to the fullest extent possible, the disadvantages he faced, so that the proceedings were unfair. The case was remitted for re-determination. Judge Harris gave directions withholding certain material from Mr Barrett under rule 14. A two-day oral hearing was directed, and the hearing was then listed for a single day, 25 June 2026. By then the issues had narrowed to the section 36 ground and a limited section 42 ground. The Commissioner did not attend.