Raees Khan v The Information Commissioner

1. By way of an application, dated 3rd August 2025, the Applicant applies for the Registrar’s decision of 30th July 2025 to be considered afresh by a judge under Rule 4(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the Rules”). 2. The Registrar’s decision was to dismiss the appeal for being out of time. That appeal related to a Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner, referenced IC-208221-T2V1 and dated 24th March 2023. 3. The Applicant notified the Tribunal by email on 24th May 2025 that he wished to appeal against the decision, but in line with the Tribunal’s practices he was informed that the appeal must be submitted on form GRC1. That form was subsequently submitted on 5th June 2025. Some of the details on the form were incorrectly entered by the Applicant however, and they were then asked to correct those details and re-submit the form. 4. The Registrar subsequently noted that the time for submitting the Notice of Appeal had passed by a significant margin. Rule 26(1) requires that a Notice of Appeal must be received by the Tribunal either (a) within 42 days of the date on which the notice of the decision was sent to the Appellant, or (b) within 42 days of the date on which the decision was published. 5. The appeal was of course submitted well in excess of the 42-day period within which an appeal must be submitted to the Tribunal, being over 2 years after the date of the Decision Notice. 6. Whilst the Applicant points to the delay being as a result of his efforts to obtain relevant medical records, seek professional support, and ensure proper representation, this would not have prevented him from submitting his appeal to this Tribunal, which relates solely to his request for information from the NHS Business Services Authority, in a more timely manner. 7. I have had regard to the Overriding Objective of the Rules in reaching my decision, which is to deal with cases fairly and justly, but consider that the excessive delay is such that I am not persuaded that an extension of time for submitting the appeal should have been granted. 8. The appeal is therefore dismissed for being out of time.