Harron v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (INFORMATION RIGHTS - practice and procedure) [2026] UKUT 48 (AAC) (02 February 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal dismissed Mr Harron’s appeal and held that the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law when it refused to certify contempt under section 61 of FOIA. The tribunal accepted that RMBC had complied with the substituted decision notice by issuing a fresh response without relying on section 14, and said that any dispute about whether that fresh response was substantively correct belonged in a section 50 complaint to the Information Commissioner, not in contempt proceedings.

Key points

• Parties: Liam Harron v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; Information Commissioner joined as interested party
• Holding: appeal dismissed; no error of law in refusing contempt certification under FOIA section 61
• Reasoning: contempt requires non-compliance with the substituted decision notice itself, not disagreement with the adequacy of the new response
• Reasoning: RMBC’s fresh response not relying on section 14 was treated as compliance with the substituted decision notice
• Jurisdictional line: challenges to whether the information was actually 'held' fall within section 50 complaint/IC review, not contempt
• Sanctions/export-control angle: no direct sanctions or export-control issue; the case is about information-rights enforcement mechanics and tribunal/IC boundaries

Why it matters

For sanctions and national-security practitioners, the judgment is a procedural reminder that enforcement routes matter: alleged non-disclosure must be taken through the correct statutory channel, and contempt is not a substitute for merits disagreement. In sovereign-risk or sensitive-information contexts, it underscores the separation between compliance with an information-order and later disputes over whether the authority has fully answered the request.

Implications

Public authorities can avoid contempt exposure if they issue a fresh response that tracks the substituted decision notice, even if the requester believes the response is incomplete or wrong on the merits. For litigants, the strategic path is to use the Information Commissioner’s section 50 process to challenge whether information is held or should have been disclosed, rather than framing that dispute as contempt of court.