Mohammad Chamani v The Information Commissioner

1. References in this Ruling to: a. the “Tribunal Rules” mean The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009; b. a Rule are references to the applicable rule of the Tribunal Rules.

2. Case Management Directions dated 03 October 2025 (the “October Directions”) were issued in respect of the Appellant’s application submitted to the Tribunal via Form GRC3. The October Directions stated, in summary, that the application actually related to an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 but that there appeared to be no basis for bringing an appeal to the Tribunal under that Act because there had been no relevant decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner.

3. The October Directions invited the Appellant to make submissions, in accordance with Rule 8(4), as to why the appeal should not be struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) on the basis that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. The Appellant was notified that a failure to comply with the October Directions may result in the appeal being struck out for non-compliance under Rule 8(1), regardless of any consideration of a strike out under Rule 8(2)(a).

4. The October Directions also referred to the Appellant stating, in his GRC3 Form, that he expected an anonymisation order to prevent his name appearing on Tribunal publications. The Appellant was advised that any application for anonymity must be made via the Tribunal’s GRC5 Form.

5. The Appellant subsequently contacted the Tribunal, via email, within the time limit specified by the October Directions. Amongst other things, the Appellant made allegations about the Tribunal acting unlawfully with regard to his personal data. He considered that he needed to “ withdraw all my applications, as the only way to protect further violation of my privacy ”.

6. The Appellant did not, therefore, make any submissions regarding the potential strike-out of the appeal – but merely considered that he could not proceed with any application for reasons unconnected with the issues which the October Directions sought his submissions on.

7. Accordingly, I find that the Appellant did not comply with those Case Management Directions.

8. I also note that the Appellant also did not make any application for anonymity via the Tribunal’s GRC5 Form.

9. Pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a), the Tribunal may strike out the appeal if the Appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the Appellant to comply with that direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them. As I have noted, that was expressly stated in the October Directions.

10. Given the Appellant’s failure to comply with the October Directions, the appeal is struck out under Rule 8(3)(a).

11. The Appellant may apply to reinstate the appeal in accordance with Rule 8(5). Pursuant to Rule 8(6) of the Tribunal Rules, any such application must be made in writing and must be received by the Tribunal within 28 days after the date on which the Tribunal sent notification of this Ruling to the Appellant.

12. I conclude by noting that the Appellant stated in his email to the Tribunal that he required the processing of his personal data to cease and accordingly expected no further processing of his applications. However, once legal proceedings have been initiated then the Tribunal is under a duty to manage those proceedings in accordance with the Tribunal Rules and accordingly this Ruling is necessary. The Appellant was notified, when he completed his GRC3 Form, of the privacy policy governing how his personal data is processed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Signed: Judge Roper Date: 25 November 2025