Richard Naylor v Information Commissioner

2. The Appellant submitted an appeal by way of form GRC1 dated 4 September 2024 challenging a decision made by the respondent on 5 August 2024. The Tribunal appears to have received this document on 6 September 2024, four days out of time. The Appellant did not provide any explanation for the late submission.

3. By directions dated 20 February 2025, Registrar Bamawo issued directions that the Appellant should make an application for extension of time to the Tribunal giving reasons for why the appeal was submitted late. However, these directions were made based on a mistake of fact, which was that the appeal was received by the Tribunal on 6 September 2024, rather than 6 November 2024 as stated in the directions. The Appellant wrote to the Tribunal to query this mistake on 23 February 2025. He said that he had sent an appeal on 5 September 2024 for an ICO decision dated 8 August 2024. This date for the ICO’s decision was incorrect, as it was issued on 5 August 2024.

4. This mistake as to the date it had received the appeal was acknowledged by the Tribunal in further case management directions dated 3 September 2025. Those directions required the Appellant to submit a form GRC5 by 18 September 2025 with an explanation as to why the appeal was submitted late and requesting permission for it to be admitted out of time. The Appellant was asked to note that failure to comply with this direction could lead to the Tribunal striking out this appeal for failure to comply under rule 8(3)(a) without further direction.

5. The Appellant then submitted a form GRC5 dated 16 September 2025 asking that his case be reinstated. In the reasons for the application the Appellant simply stated “Regarding CMD dated 03.09.2025. Case to be considered within time. This application within 14 days of 03.09.2025.” No other information or explanation was provided. The Tribunal wrote to the Appellant on 7 October 2025 stating that “The Tribunal requires that, as the appeal was submitted later than the time required, that the appellant must also provide reasons for why the notice of appeal was not provided in time.” No response has been received by the Tribunal to this communication.

6. I consider that although the Appellant did submit a form GRC5 as directed, he has failed to comply with the order because he did not, in that form or in any other correspondence, give any reasons for why the initial form GRC1 was not submitted in time. As no reason has been provided for the late submission, the appeal remains out of time. Accordingly, I direct that the claim should be struck out for non-compliance with a Tribunal direction under rule 8(3)(a). Signed: Judge Harris Date: 17 November 2025