Wilson v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKUT 199 (AAC) (18 May 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in an information-rights appeal and remitted the case for rehearing by a fresh tribunal. It held that the FTT’s handling of closed material and the paper determination process was procedurally irregular, and that it had not adequately demonstrated the correct approach to regulation 12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Key points

• Parties: Mr Peter Wilson appealed against the Information Commissioner; the underlying request concerned Shropshire Council information.
• Holding: the UT found errors of law, set aside the FTT decision under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and remitted for a fresh oral hearing.
• Reasoning: the FTT gave a gist of withheld material only after dismissing the appeal, leaving no meaningful chance to respond; this failed the duty to minimise disadvantage from closed material.
• Reasoning: the FTT did not adequately explain how the closed material procedure would operate in a paper case, so the appellant could not make an informed choice between paper determination and an oral hearing.
• Reasoning: the FTT failed to show a structural approach to regulation 12 of the EIRs 2004 as required by Highways England Company Ltd v Information Commissioner and Henry Manisty.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent on the face of the decision; the case is about environmental information disclosure procedure, not sanctions or export controls.

Why it matters

This is relevant to sovereign-risk and national-security-adjacent practice only in the procedural sense: it reinforces limits on closed-material handling in UK information-rights litigation. It does not create any sanctions or export-control rule, but it shows that secrecy-based procedures must still be managed so the non-government party has a fair chance to answer the case.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, public authorities and the Information Commissioner must ensure that any closed-material process is explained clearly, that gist disclosure is timely enough to permit meaningful response, and that paper determinations are truly informed choices. Decision-makers relying on EIR exceptions should also demonstrate the required structured analysis under regulation 12, because procedural defects can be enough to unravel an otherwise merits-based refusal.