{"id":643372,"date":"2026-04-22T03:17:07","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T01:17:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-22T03:17:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-22T01:17:07","slug":"paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

on Strike Out Application 1. The First Respondent\u2019s Strike Out Application dated 4 November 2022 is refused. REASONS 2. The Information Commissioner published a Decision Notice on 23 August 2022 which found on the balance of probabilities that no further information was held by the Second Respondent and required no steps to be taken. 3. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 19 August 2022 (presumably intended to be 19 September 2022). His grounds of appeal were that the law required the Second Respondent to record more information than it had disclosed, that it had acted in bad faith during the Information Commissioner\u2019s investigation and that its position was untenable. 4. On 4 November 2022, the Information Commissioner, in filing his Response to the appeal, applied for a strike out under rule 8 (3)(c) on the basis that the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. It submitted that it is irrelevant to the Tribunal\u2019s statutory remit to consider whether information should have been held, only whether it was held. 5. The Appellant was invited to make submissions in response to the proposed strike out pursuant to rule 8 (4). In a submission dated 25 January 2023, he explained that the relevance of the statutory duty to record information that he had identified in his grounds of appeal was that it rendered the Decision Notice\u2019s conclusion on the balance of probabilities erroneous, because the Decision Notice should have taken into account the fact that there was a particular reason why more information would have been held. 6. I have considered the Upper Tribunal\u2019s decision in HMRC v Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Limited (in liquidation) [2014] UKUT 0329 (TCC), in which it is stated at [41] that: \u2026an application to strike out in the FTT under rule 8 (3) (c) should be considered in a similar way to an application under CPR 3.4 in civil proceedings (whilst recognising that there is no equivalent jurisdiction in the First-tier to summary judgement under Part 24).\u00a0 The Tribunal must consider whether there is a realistic, as opposed to a fanciful (in the sense of it being entirely without substance) prospect of succeeding on the issue at a full hearing\u2026The Tribunal must avoid conducting a \u201cmini-trial\u201d.\u00a0 As Lord Hope observed in Three Rivers the strike out procedure is to deal with cases that are not fit for a full hearing at all. 7. Applying this approach, I have considered all the parties\u2019 representations and concluded that this is not a case which may be described as \u2018not fit for a full hearing\u2019. On the contrary, I find that the Appellant\u2019s grounds of appeal clearly establish a triable issue between the parties, which is whether the Tribunal should conclude that more information is held as a result of the Second Respondent being under a statutory duty to record it. I am satisfied that this is relevant to the application of the balance of probabilities test. 8. In all the circumstances, I have concluded that this appeal should not be struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and so I refuse the Respondent\u2019s application. This matter should proceed to determination as soon as practicable. 9. I note that the First Respondent and the Appellant have debated the relevance of several Decisions of the First-tier Tribunal. I hope it is helpful if I remind the parties that Decisions of the First-tier Tribunal do not set binding precedent, and that the Tribunal which decides this appeal will only be bound to follow precedent set by the Upper Tribunal and Higher Courts. (Signed) Dated: 1 March 2023 Judge Alison McKenna \u00a9 CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

on Strike Out Application 1. The First Respondent\u2019s Strike Out Application dated 4 November 2022 is refused. REASONS 2. The Information Commissioner published a Decision Notice on 23 August 2022 which found on the balance of probabilities that no further information was held by the Second Respondent and required no steps to be taken. 3. The Appellant filed a Notice…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7609],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[24566],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7919,7615,15009,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-643372","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-information-rights","kji_year-24566","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-application","kji_keyword-information","kji_keyword-strike","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nPaul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"on Strike Out Application 1. The First Respondent\u2019s Strike Out Application dated 4 November 2022 is refused. REASONS 2. The Information Commissioner published a Decision Notice on 23 August 2022 which found on the balance of probabilities that no further information was held by the Second Respondent and required no steps to be taken. 3. The Appellant filed a Notice...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"3 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u044b\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-22T01:17:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor","og_description":"on Strike Out Application 1. The First Respondent\u2019s Strike Out Application dated 4 November 2022 is refused. REASONS 2. The Information Commissioner published a Decision Notice on 23 August 2022 which found on the balance of probabilities that no further information was held by the Second Respondent and required no steps to be taken. 3. The Appellant filed a Notice...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"3 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u044b"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/","name":"Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-22T01:17:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/paul-hopkins-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/643372","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=643372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=643372"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=643372"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=643372"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=643372"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=643372"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=643372"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=643372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}