The High Court has refused the Commissioner for Environmental Information’s request to send an appeal back for further consideration, ruling that its earlier judgment had already determined the dispute over access to an entire transcript.
In a ruling delivered on 29 February 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the Commissioner had no remaining jurisdiction over Right to Know CLG’s request. The court had held in a judgment on 17 January that the transcript sought was not “environmental information” under the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007-2018.
The Commissioner argued that he should be allowed to make a new decision on whether certain extracts of the transcript came within the Regulations’ definition of environmental information. The judge rejected that submission. Right to Know had requested the transcript in its entirety, and the appeal before the Commissioner had concerned whether that whole document qualified. It had not concerned whether selected extracts might qualify separately.
The judge said the court’s earlier decision was determinative of the appeal. As a result, there was nothing left for the Commissioner to reconsider, and remittal did not arise. Although both the Electricity Supply Board and the Commissioner accepted that remittal was a matter for the court’s discretion in this statutory appeal, the judge declined to exercise that discretion in favour of a remittal because it could serve no useful purpose.
The ruling followed written submissions from the Electricity Supply Board and the Commissioner. The judge decided an oral hearing was unnecessary; the Commissioner’s written submissions said one was no longer sought.
The Electricity Supply Board had succeeded in the earlier appeal and also opposed remittal successfully. The judge maintained his preliminary view that costs should be ordered against the entirely unsuccessful party. He said execution of a costs order should be stayed from the perfection of the final order for the time allowed to appeal and, if an appeal is lodged, until the first directions hearing in the Court of Appeal.
If the parties dispute any issue, including costs, the ruling directs them to provide short written submissions within 14 days. Otherwise, they are invited to submit an agreed draft order within that period.