We will track here amendments to this resource that reflect changes in law and practice.
This case tracker follows decisions made by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights (FTTIR) (formerly the Information Tribunal (IT)), the Upper Tribunal (UT) and other courts that involve the use of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391) (EIR).
This tracker includes details of all PLC legal updates on decisions relating to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391) made by:
The courts.
The Upper Tribunal (UT).
The First-tier Tribunal (FTTIR) (and the Information Tribunal (IT) before 1 January 2010).
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
Please note that we do not report on all decisions made by these bodies. We only report where we consider that a decision changes or develops the law or highlights a point of interest.
The legal updates are arranged below by reference to the exemption or exception that they concern and are ordered according to the body that made the decision (starting with decisions made by the most senior body) and then chronologically (most recent first).
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
High Court | Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police v the Information Commissioner (2011) EWHC 44 (Admin) | The High Court held that, when estimating whether the cost of complying with a request for information would exceed the appropriate limit, a public authority was not permitted by regulation 4 of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3244)) to consider time it expected to spend redacting exempt information from relevant documents before disclosing them to the applicant. | |
UT | The UT ordered the Ministry of Defence to disclose information relating to the extraordinary rendition of prisoners following a request made under the FOIA. The UT has questioned the previous UT decision in DEFRA v Information Commissioner and another [2011] UKUT 39 (AAC), which found that public authorities were entitled as of right to raise exemptions under the FOIA for the first time when a matter reached tribunal stage. The decision in APG also found that the exemption in section 12 of FOIA should be claimed when a request is first responded to and that the disclosure of anonymised data that would not allow people (other than the disclosing authority) to identify individuals does not constitute the processing of personal data and does not attract the exemption in section 40 of FOIA. | ||
FTTIR | Sittampalam v the Information Commissioner and another (EA/2010/0141) (2011) | The FTTIR provided further guidance on the stage at which a public authority can claim the exemption set out in section 12 of the FOIA. The exemption allows an authority to refuse to respond to a request for information made under FOIA when doing so would exceed the applicable cost limit, £600 for central government or £450 for other public bodies. | |
IT | The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police v the Information Commissioner (EA/2009/29) (2009) | The IT found that the time taken to redact a document cannot be taken into account by a public authority when deciding if the cost limit set out in section 12 of FOIA applies. An appeal by the Chief Constable has also now been rejected by the High Court (see above). | |
IT | The IT found an authority could take account of time spent following a misunderstanding of a request for information in applying the limit set out in section 12 FOIA. This followed both the ICO and the Trust misunderstanding the complainant's request for certain pages that had been removed from reports previously disclosed to the complainant. | ||
IT | Tony Harcup and Yorkshire Forward (YF) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0058) (2008) | The IT stated that a public authority is not required to prove their estimate of costs to any high standard; merely that is a reasonable one. | |
IT | The IT allowed an appeal against a decision of the ICO, ruling that the NA wrongly refused to continue to disclose information from its online records relating to Princess Margaret under section 12 or 14 of FOIA. It held that section 12, had to be considered with section 16, which concerns the advice and assistance that a public authority is obliged to give to those who request information. Here, it would have been reasonable to expect the NA to advise the appellant to phase his requests at intervals of more than 60 days, and to help him do so in a logical manner. NA's failure to do so meant it could not rely on section 12 to refuse the request. | ||
IT | Mr P Quinn v the Information Commissioner (EA/2006/0010) (2006) | The IT held that an authority could rely on section 12, not only where a costs estimate was made by an authority before a search had commenced, but also where a search had been embarked on and the appropriate cost limit had been reached. | Information Tribunal considers section 12 of the FOIA (www.practicallaw.com/8-208-6960) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department of Health (DoH) (FS50088736) (2009) | The ICO held that the bulk of a contract between the DoH and one of its service providers had to be disclosed following a request under FOIA. The ICO found that the DoH had misinterpreted the request and that this had led to the estimated cost of complying with the request being inflated, section 12 did not therefore apply. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) (number of decisions of similar nature) (FS50190235, FS50176016 and FS50187763) (2009) | The complainants in each case requested information from the FCS. The FCS refused to disclose the information, or to confirm if the information requested was held citing sections 14(1) and 12(1) of FOIA. The ICO investigated and found that sections 14(1) and 12(1) of FOIA were not engaged. Section 12(1) was not engaged because the ICO did not consider that the FCS's estimates of the time it would take to respond to the requests were reasonable. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 April 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-8237) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (FS50173284) (2008) | The complainants requested information from the OFT regarding its investigation into credit card default charges. The OFT explained that it held the requested information but to provide it would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12 of FOIA. The ICO found that the OFT was entitled to aggregate the cost of responding to the request under section 12(4) and that the OFT correctly relied upon section 12(1) as a basis for not providing some of the information. | ICO finds both for and against OFT (www.practicallaw.com/8-384-3659) |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
UT | Information Commissioner v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), Craven v Information Commissioner [2012] UKUT 442 (AAC) and Ainslie v Information Commissioner [2012] UKUT 441 (AAC) | The UT ruled on the correct test for whether information requests are vexatious (section 14, FOIA) or manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b), EIR). The UT stated that:
The rulings were in three separate cases that were heard by the same judge within a short time of each other. They are significant because the FOIA does not give guidance on the meaning of these terms and there has previously been no binding authority from appellate courts or tribunals. | |
FTTIR | In deciding whether a request for financial information was vexatious under section 14 of the FOIA, the FTTIR ruled that previous unrelated communications between a council and the maker of the request were not relevant. However, the tribunal did not rule out contemporaneous information being taken into account in other requests. | ||
FTTIR | The FTTIR rejected the Information Commissioner's decision that Bury Council was correct to refuse the appellant's freedom of information request as vexatious under section 14 of the FOIA. The appellant had submitted an 11-page information request to the council. The FTTIR concluded that the council should have considered inviting the appellant to narrow and focus his request so that it could be dealt with in a more effective way and that the council should not have included, in its claim of vexatiousness, the impact of questions submitted at public council meetings, to the Audit Commission and to a local MP. | ||
FTTIR | Independent Police Complaints Commission v Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0222) | The Tribunal took a broad view of the exemptions in sections 12 (costs limit) and 14 (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The tribunal held that there only needs to be a very loose connection between requests to allow them to be aggregated for the purposes of section 12, and that the costs of responding to a request can lead to the request being vexatious under section 14. Public authorities should consider whether they can take advantage of the views taken by the tribunal in dealing with requests for information that they consider are abusing the right to information established in FOIA. | |
FTTIR | The Tribunal provided guidance on the meaning of harassment in vexatious requests and highlighted the importance of following the Information Commissioner's guidance. The Tribunal also stated that whether a request creates a strain on a public authority's resources is not relevant to the question of whether a request is vexatious. | ||
ICO | The Complainant v Sunderland City Council (Council) (FS50380006 and FS50374873) (2011) | In two decision notices dated 24 October 2011, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) ordered Sunderland City Council to reconsider two requests for information, regarding funding for business initiatives. The council had refused the requests on the basis they were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. | |
UT | The appellant, a vexatious litigant, wanted to appeal four decisions of the Information Commissioner with the First-tier tribunal, which had been struck out for lack of permission. He therefore appealed to the AAC. The AAC held the grant of permission to a vexatious litigant to bring proceedings was not a matter that was incidental to the AAC's functions (section 25(c), Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007). Therefore, the AAC did not have power to give permission. The appellant needed the permission of the High Court to bring proceedings before the FTT and the AAC and the FTT had no jurisdiction to deal with any aspect of IB's appeals, unless and until he obtained permission of the High Court. | ||
FTTIR | Dransfield v the Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0079) (2011) | The applicant made a request on 29 May 2010 for approved design drawings of the pedestrian bridge at Exeter Chiefs' Rugby Grounds and the lightning protection system test (LPS) results in relation to that bridge. However, there was a history of previous FOIA requests relating to health and safety and LPS of other projects and buildings that Devon County Council (Council) relied on when characterising the applicant's request as vexatious, and which the IC agreed, was a continuation of the applicant's May 2010 request. Having carefully considered the history of prior dealings between the applicant and the Council, the FTTIR decided that the request was not vexatious. Its reasons for doing so were that the request, on its face, was simple and "entirely benign". The reason the request for information was refused had everything to do with the previous history of dealings and nothing to do with the request itself. | Vexatious requests under FOIA: look at the request not the applicant |
FTTIR | The public authority refused requests for information on the basis that a substantial number of freedom of information requests had been received during a specific period and that, to a significant extent, they were associated with each other. The FTTIR agreed that the applicant was acting with others in pursuing a targeted campaign of requests and upheld the decision of the public authority and the IC that the appellant's request fell within section 14 of the FOIA. | ||
FTTIR | Gardner v the Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0054) (2011) | Gardner was a tenant of Nottingham City Council. He had requested information on public expenditure on neighbouring flats, in the belief that more money had been spent on their upkeep than the property he occupied. The FTTIR rejected the IC's finding that, in view of the context and history of his requests, the applicant had "stepped over the fine line between persistence and a request being obsessive and unreasonable". The FTTIR found that insufficient consideration had been given to the applicant's request because the public authority and the IC had placed too much weight on the context of the request, rather than on giving sufficient consideration to the purpose and value of the request. Gardner's request did not fall within section 14 of the FOIA. | |
FTTIR | The appellant appealed the IC's decision that his request for information to Lancashire Constabulary (LC) was vexatious. The issue for the FTTIR was whether the IC had acted in accordance with the law when concluding that LC had correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA. The FTTIR overturned the IC's decision in this case because no corroborating evidence on the volume and history of requests was produced by the public authority to the IC or the FTTIR. As a result, the IC is likely to be more demanding when it considers if a claim is vexatious. Therefore, authorities seeking to rely on section 14 should ensure they provide adequate details of the volume of requests and the history of allegations. | ||
FTTIR | The FTTIR:
| Information Tribunal: when is a request vexatious? (www.practicallaw.com/4-502-4334) | |
IT | The IT allowed an appeal against a decision of the ICO, ruling that the NA wrongly refused to continue to disclose information from its online records relating to Princess Margaret under section 12 or 14 of FOIA. The IT also held that it could not rely on section 14 concerning vexatious or repeated requests as although the requests were identical they were made in respect of different records of information. | ||
ICO | The Complainant v the Brent Council (Council) (FS50238979) (2009) | The complainant made a number of requests to the Council and a number of other authorities for information relating to complaints against it and their outcomes as well as its expenditure. The Council refused the request on the basis of the provisions of section 14(1) of FOIA, stating that the request was vexatious. The ICO held a public authority can in some cases consider requests made to other public authorities in determining that a request is vexatious. However, the ICO also stated that, this placed a greater burden on the public authority to show reasonable arguments in relation to the five tests for vexatiousness. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 July 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-386-8062) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) (number of decisions of similar nature) (FS50190235, FS50176016 and FS50187763) (2009) | The complainants in each case requested information from the FCS. The FCS refused to disclose the information, or to confirm if the information requested was held citing sections 14(1) and 12(1) of FOIA. The ICO investigated and found that sections 14(1) and 12(1) of FOIA were not engaged. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 April 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-8237) |
ICO | The Complainant v the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive (Centro) (FS50110741) (2007) | The ICO concluded that Centro was entitled to refuse to answer a request for information because it was vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The complainant had submitted 15 requests to Centro concerning the authority's financial relationship with four local bus companies. The ICO decided that the fifteenth request was vexatious because it imposed a significant and unreasonable burden on Centro; when taken with earlier requests, it had the effect of harassing Centro; and it was obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | Department for Education v Information Commissioner and another (EA/2012/0136, 0166 and 0167) | The FTTIR upheld the IC's decision that information concerning all free school applications that had been made should be disclosed by the Department for Education. The FTTIR was satisfied that the IC properly weighed the public interest in concluding that the information sought by the complainants should be disclosed (although considered that the IC was wrong to conclude that section 35 rather than section 36 of the FOIA 2000 was engaged). | |
FTTIR | Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner [2012] EA/2011/0263 | The Cabinet Office has failed in its appeal against a decision notice issued by the IC requiring the disclosure of information about cabinet discussions concerning the takeover of Rowntree Mackintosh by Nestlé in 1988. The decision supports the position that the convention of cabinet collective responsibility will not be an absolute bar to the disclosure of information under the FOIA. | |
FTTIR | Department of Health v Information Commissioner and another (EA/2011/0286 & 287) | The Tribunal held that one risk register relating to the Health and Social Care Bill must be disclosed, while another should not, even though both registers fell within the exemption for the formulation of government policy in section 35 of FOIA. The decision provides useful guidance as to how the tribunal will approach the question of whether the public interest lies in maintaining an exemption or disclosing information | |
High Court | HM Treasury v the Information Commissioner (2009) EWHC 1811 (Admin) | The High Court quashed the IT's decision that section 35(3) of FOIA did not exempt the Treasury from confirming or denying whether it held Law Officer's advice. The court held that the tribunal had erred in considering how to approach the strength of the public interest in maintaining the exemption by, among other things, failing to realise that Parliament intended that real weight should be given to the government convention (set out in the Ministerial Code) that disclosure of the fact and content of a Law Officer's opinion was subject to his consent and that this convention had been preserved by FOIA. | |
High Court | The High Court partially upheld an appeal against an IT decision ordering BERR to disclose various documents under FOIA. The court held that to overturn the IT's decision in respect of the public interest, it would be necessary to demonstrate an error of law in its approach to the issue and that BERR had failed to do so. | ||
FTTIR | The FTTIR held that government policy is no longer be being developed or formulated once a Bill receives Royal Assent. | ||
FTTIR | Cabinet Office v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0031) (2010) | The FTTIR rejected an appeal against a decision notice issued by the ICO and ordered the disclosure of the minutes of a Cabinet meeting. The IT accepted that the exemption in section 35(1)(b) of FOIA applied, and that Cabinet minutes are likely to be among the most sensitive documents created by central government. However, the IT also noted the exemption was qualified and not absolute and therefore Parliament contemplated that there may be circumstances in which the disclosure of such documents might be in the public interest. The IT found that the public interest did require the minutes to be disclosed. | Information Tribunal orders disclosure of Westland Cabinet minutes (www.practicallaw.com/0-503-3383) |
FTTIR | Home Office v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0011) (2010) | The FTTIR held that a public body has the right to raise exemptions under FOIA for the first time before it and a tribunal is bound to consider them. This is different from the existing case law where tribunals have the discretion to refuse late reliance on FOIA exemptions and generally will tend to do so except in exceptional circumstances where the reliance is justified. However, even though the FTTIR accepted that section 35 was engaged, it found the public interest required the relevant information to be disclosed. | Public authority entitled to late reliance on FOIA exemptions (www.practicallaw.com/9-502-7085) |
FTTIR | Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2009/0077) (2010) | The FTTIR has allowed an appeal of the CPS in part against a decision notice issued by the ICO. The FTTIR accepted that the exemption in section 35 was engaged, but found the public interest required the relevant information to be disclosed. This case also considered the right of authorities to claim that new exemptions apply once a matter reaches the tribunal and concluded that it is at the discretion of the tribunal. | Tribunal rules on late claiming of FOIA exemptions (www.practicallaw.com/1-501-8853) |
IT | Cabinet Office v the Information Commissioner (EA/2008/0024 and EA/2008/0029) (2009) | The IT upheld the ICO's decision, under FOIA, ordering the release in redacted form of Cabinet minutes relating to the March 2003 decision to take military action in Iraq. The IT held that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the formal minutes of the two Cabinet meetings did not, at the time when the Cabinet Office refused a request for disclosure in April 2007, outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The IT recognised the importance of confidentiality of information of this sort, but held that this was an exceptional case, the circumstances of which brought together a combination of factors that were so important that, in combination, they created very powerful reasons why disclosure was in the public interest. NOTE: On 25 February 2009, Jack Straw issued a certificate under section 53 of FOIA to veto disclosure of the Cabinet minutes (see Legal update, Government vetoes disclosure of Cabinet minutes on Iraq war (www.practicallaw.com/7-385-1089)). | |
IT | The IT upheld the ICO's decision ordering the disclosure under FOIA of two Gateway reports by the OGC on the progress of the government's identity-card scheme, with the redaction of the names of certain participants. The IT held that the exemptions in both section 33 and section 35 were engaged. However, it ruled that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. | ||
IT | The IT doubted the assertion made by BERR and the CBI that the risk of disclosure of records of meetings held in 2005 between the Department of Trade and Industry (as it then was) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) would lead to a loss of frankness and candour in their discussions. Accordingly, the IT held that although the exemptions contained in sections 35 and 36 of FOIA were engaged, the public interest in favour of disclosure outweighed that in favour of the maintenance of the exemptions. | ||
IT | The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2006/0040) (2007) | The IT dismissed an appeal by the SSWP against the ICO's decision and ordered the disclosure of a redacted version of a feasibility study on the impact of identity cards. The parties agreed that the disputed information fell within the scope of the qualified exemption in section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The IT concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information, not least because the disputed information was produced after the government had taken the decision to introduce an identity card scheme. | |
IT | The Department for Education and Skills (DFES) v the Information Commissioner and the Evening Standard (EA/2006/0006) (2007) | The IT upheld a decision of the ICO in which he concluded that minutes of meetings of the DFES fell within the qualified exemption in section 35(1) of FOIA, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. | Information Tribunal orders DFES to disclose meeting minutes (www.practicallaw.com/8-236-0020) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Home Office (FS50129487) (2009) | The ICO found that the Home Office correctly applied sections 35 and 36 of FOIA to a request for information. The request related to the Home Office's ban on membership of the British National Party for the police force. The ICO held that, while there was a strong public interest in the steps being taken to counter racial discrimination in the police force, this did not outweigh the disruption that disclosing the information would cause to government. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Cabinet Office (CO) (FS50086299) (2007) | The ICO ruled that the CO correctly applied the exemption under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA, concerning the formulation or development of government policy, in withholding some information relating to meetings between the former Prime Minister and leading business executives. However, the ICO ruled that the background briefing materials should be disclosed, as the public interest in their disclosure, particularly in informing public debate, outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. | ICO partially upholds Cabinet Office's response to FOIA request (www.practicallaw.com/3-375-8903) |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | Ian Helstrip v Information Commissioner and High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd (EA/2012/0201) (2013) | The FTTIR held that a FOIA application for information about a hardship scheme for those affected by the High Speed Two (HS2) rail link engaged section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. However, the public interest was in favour of disclosing the information. | |
FTTIR | Department for Education v Information Commissioner and another (EA/2012/0136, 0166 and 0167) | The FTTIR upheld the IC's decision that information concerning all free school applications that had been made should be disclosed by the Department for Education. The FTTIR was satisfied that the IC properly weighed the public interest in concluding that the information sought by the complainants should be disclosed (although considered that the IC was wrong to conclude that section 35 rather than section 36 of the FOIA 2000 was engaged). | |
FTTIR | Uttlesford District Council v Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0269 & 0285) | The FTTIR upheld the council's appeal against the Information Commissioner's decisions that the council should disclose draft committee reports and e-mails between officers and members of the council on whether particular members were eligible to vote on a planning application. The request for disclosure of the e-mails, which addressed questions of probity, did not fall within regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and should have been considered under the FOIA. The tribunal was satisfied that the draft reports passing between the council and its legal adviser fell within the scope of legal professional privilege. | |
High Court | The High Court upheld the IT's decision regarding a request for information about how the applicant's previous requests under FOIA had been handled. The IT held that section 36(2) of FOIA was engaged but that the public interest in disclosure outweighed that in maintaining the exemption. | ||
FTTIR | Rob Edwards v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0056) (2010) | The FTTIR held that an appeal that had been rendered "academic" by the disclosure of the documents requested by the MOD, should be struck out and not be allowed to proceed. | "Academic" appeal struck out by Information Tribunal (www.practicallaw.com/9-504-1369) |
FTTIR | Public and Commercial Services Union v the Information Commissioner (EA/2009/0123) (2010) | The FTTIR held that information relating to pay negotiation meetings held between the National Offender Management Service and the Public and Commercial Services Union was exempt information for the purposes of section 36 of FOIA and as the information could be relevant to future negotiations, the public interest of maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest of disclosure. | |
IT | The IT upheld a decision by the ICO that copies of course materials for a UCLAN degree were not exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The IT dismissed UCLAN's arguments that the course materials were exempt under section 43(2) and section 36(2)(c). In relation to section 36, the IT held that the opinion of the qualified person was not reasonable or reasonably arrived at. | ||
IT | Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0047) (2008) | The IT ordered the disclosure of a previously unpublished draft of a government dossier on Iraq, subject to the redaction of manuscript amendments. The IT rejected the FCO's main argument on appeal, namely that the ICO had correctly held that the draft constituted exempt information under section 36(2) of FOIA but that he had been wrong to conclude that the public interest in maintaining that exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The IT, concluded that the "chilling effect" of its disclosure would have been quite limited in 2005 because of the prior publication of the Hutton Report, which had placed a substantial amount of relevant information in the public domain and had provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the dossier. However, in the IT's opinion, disclosure of the draft might be capable of adding to the public's understanding of the issues in question. | |
IT | The IT considered section 36(2) of FOIA and allowed the appeals of two journalists who had requested from the BBC copies of the minutes of the BBC's board of governors' meeting, after the publication of the Hutton report. The IT accepted that section 36(2)(b)(ii) applied but held that the public interest required disclosure. | ||
ICO | The Complainant v Cornwall County Council (FS50302293) (2011) | The ICO held that Cornwall County Council was correct to hold that the exemptions in sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and (2)(c) applied to a request for a copy of a list of primary schools in Cornwall that were facing or may potentially face issues of financial sustainability. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Hampshire County Council (Council) (FS50290043) (2011) | The ICO considered a request for a list of schools nominated by the Council for the government's Gaining Ground scheme. In the press, such schools have been referred to as "coasting". The ICO concluded that the Council was correct to conclude the list fell within the exemption set out in section 36. However, the ICO concluded that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed that in maintaining the exemption and ordered the Council to disclose the list. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 26 January 2011 (www.practicallaw.com/0-504-5994) |
ICO | The Complainant v the London Borough of Merton (LBM) (FS50252690) (2010) | The ICO ordered the LBM to disclose notes taken at a "Star Chamber" meeting held to identify where cuts in the LBM's budget could be made. The ICO accepted that the notes fell within the exemption set out in section 36(2)(b)(ii) but concluded that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed that in maintaining the exemption. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the London Borough of Haringey (LBH) (FS50234513) (2010) | The complainant requested a copy of the first Serious Case Review into the death of Peter Connelly (formerly known as "Baby P"). The ICO upheld LBH's view that the exemption under section 36(2)(b)(ii) was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information in all the circumstances of the case. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Home Office (FS50131117) (2009) | The ICO found that the Home Office had incorrectly applied sections 31 and 43 of FOIA to a request for information about poor performance reviews in respect of two police forces. The ICO accepted that section 36 was engaged, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 28 October 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-500-5803) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department of Health (DoH) (FS50149373, FS50149374 and FS50149375) (2009) | The ICO published three decision notices relating to the development of the MMR vaccination policy, each finding against the DoH. The requests, made under FOIA were for copies of minutes of three DoH committees' meetings, that cover the period in which the combined vaccine was introduced. The ICO found that the exemptions contained in sections 38, 40, 41 and 43 of FOIA did not apply. While the exemption contained in section 36 of FOIA did apply, the public interest test meant that the information requested should still be disclosed. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Home Office (FS50129487) (2009) | The ICO found that the Home Office correctly applied sections 35 and 36 of FOIA to a request for information. The request related to the Home Office's ban on membership of the British National Party for the police force. The ICO held that, while there was a strong public interest in the steps being taken to counter racial discrimination in the police force, this did not outweigh the disruption that disclosing the information would cause to government. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) (FS50080369) (2008) | The complainant requested the names and addresses of respondents in Employment Tribunal applications. The BERR refused to disclose the information citing section 36(c)(ii) of FOIA. The ICO found that the exemption in section 36 was engaged but the public interest in maintaining the exemption was outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | White v IC (Freedom of Information Act 2000) (EA/2012/0238) (2013) UKFTT 2012_0238 (GRC) | The FTTIR held that Carmarthenshire County Council must disclose, under the FOIA, a list of the dog breeders that it regulates. The tribunal ruled that section 40(2) of FOIA (which states that personal data may be exempt from disclosure) did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure, as licensing is a public regulatory process. | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR has held that Surrey Primary Care Trust must comply with a freedom of information request to disclose the precise salary and benefits paid to its Chief Executive Officer over a three-year period. The public authority had sought to rely on the exemption for personal data under section 40(2) of the FOIA. | ||
FTTIR | Patricia Cialfi v Information Commissioner, EA/2012/0183 (2013) | The FTTIR has held that details of staff who attended leadership training courses constituted personal data and that Sheffield Hallam University was entitled under section 40(2) of the FOIA to redact such details when complying with a request for information | |
ICO | Stoke-on-Trent City Council | The ICO has imposed a fine of £120,000 for a serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 that led to sensitive information about a child protection legal case being e-mailed to the incorrect recipient. The breach occurred when 11 e-mails were sent by a solicitor at Stoke-on-Trent City Council to the wrong address. The e-mails included highly sensitive information relating to the care of a child and further information about the health of two adults and two other children. The ICO ruled that a monetary penalty was appropriate, given that the solicitor was in breach of the council's own guidance that sensitive data should be sent over a secure network or encrypted. | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR has ruled that Dyfed Powys Police Authority was wrong to refuse a request for certain information held by the authority concerning the selection process for the appointment of a chief constable under section 40(2) of the FOIA. There were two candidates for the position; the appellant was the one who was not appointed. The FTTIR considered that there was substantial public interest in the integrity of the selection procedure for any public office, particularly one as responsible and politically sensitive as chief constable; this was of considerable weight in deciding whether the disclosure was fair. | ||
UT | The UT, overturning the Information Commissioner's decision, has held that advocacy correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers in 2004 and 2005 was disclosable under the FOIA. In broad terms its ruling was that, although there were cogent arguments for non-disclosure, the public interest benefits of disclosure of advocacy correspondence falling within the claimant journalist's requests generally outweighed the public interest benefits of non-disclosure. Consequently, there was no exemption from disclosure under sections 37(1), 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. Note: The UT later held in February 2013 that lists and schedules of advocacy correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers from 2004 and 2005 were disclosable under the FOIA. | February 2013 decision: Upper Tribunal rules correspondence lists between Prince Charles and ministers disclosable under FOIA (www.practicallaw.com/6-524-3378). | |
FTTIR | Trago Mills (South Devon) Ltd v Information Commissioner EA/2012/0028 | The FTTIR has upheld a decision of the Information Commissioner that a local authority was right not to disclose the details of a former employee's compromise agreement in response to a freedom of information request. The FTTIR found that the requested information fell within the exemption in the FOIA dealing with personal data. There was no public interest in the terms of the employee's compromise agreement despite the fact that he was a senior decision-maker in a public-facing role. The employee's reasonable expectation of privacy in the terms of his departure outweighed the local authority's duty to be accountable for the expenditure of public money. | |
UT | Information Commissioner v Magherafelt District Council [2012] UKUT 263 (AAC) | The UT has held that a council's summarised schedule of disciplinary action taken against 15 of its employees was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. Although it found that the First-tier Tribunal had been wrong on its interpretation of the law, which had lead it to conclude that the schedule amounted to personal data, it found that there was a second basis upon which the definition of personal data in section 1(1)(b) of the Data Protection Act 1998 could be satisfied. The decision is interesting as it considers the difficult issue of anonymised data and whether it falls within the definition of personal data which remained unresolved following the House of Lords' decision in Common Services Agency v Scottish Information IC [2008] UKHL 47. | |
FTTIR | Bousfield v Information Commissioner and others, EA/2011/0212, EA/2011/0213, EA/2011/0247, EA/2011/0250, EA/2011/0251, EA/2011/0252, 28 May 2012. | The FTTIR has upheld the Information Commissioner's decision in six appeals that six hospital trusts were not required to disclose the details of doctors' compromise agreements, which contained personal data and were exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) FOIA. In some cases the trust had refused to confirm or deny whether it had any agreements, in others they had been disclosed but in redacted form. The tribunal confirmed that the disclosure of the information would contravene the first data protection principle as it would not be fair, taking into account the doctors' reasonable expectations and whether it would cause damage or distress, as well as the public interest in transparency and accountability. It commented that it was not uncommon for there to be a confidentiality clause in compromise agreements which could be relevant when considering their reasonable expectation of privacy. It held that it had no jurisdiction to decide whether such clauses were void. | |
FTTIR | John Morley v Information Commissioner, EA/2011/0173, 31 May 2012 | The FTTIR overturned in part the decision of the Information Commissioner that the names of youth councillors (including minors) were personal data which was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. After the Council refused a request for names relating to a planning application, it was realised some of the names were on Facebook. The tribunal held that disclosure of the names of the councillors who were on Facebook would not be unfair and breach the first data protection principle; such councillors had chosen to make the information available in a widely used and easily accessible social-networking website, without placing any restrictions on use. There was a legitimate public interest in disclosure. | |
FTTIR | Edem v Information Commissioner and FSA, EA/2011/0132 (2012) | The Tribunal ruled on a FOIA request to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and partially allowed an appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision. The tribunal ruled that the disputed information simply disclosed the fact that three individuals had been employed by the FSA and had been engaged in the regulation of a certain financial institution. It did not adversely affect their privacy and was not, therefore, personal data under section 40(2) of the FOIA. | |
FTTIR | Peter Bolton v Information Commissioner and another, EA/2011/0216 (2012) | The Tribunal partly allowed an appeal from a decision of the Information Commissioner that a local authority had been entitled to withhold the personal data of applicants for a senior role within the authority on the basis that disclosure would have breached the first data protection principle. The Tribunal held that the authority should have disclosed personal data relating to the role of senior (not junior) council employees and councillors in the recruitment process. | |
High Court | R (Department of Health) v the Information Commissioner (2011) EWHC 1430 (Admin) | The High Court upheld a previous IC decision, which held that "ground E" abortion statistics could not be considered personal information under the DPA and, therefore, were not exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the FOIA. The High Court held that, even though the DoH held additional information, which if disclosed, would enable the identification of individuals who had ground E abortions, the statistics alone could not amount to personal data. | |
High Court | Corporate Office of the House of Commons v the Information Commissioner (2008) EWHC 1084 (Admin) | Upholding a decision of the IT, the High Court dismissed an appeal on behalf of certain MPs who resisted disclosing personal data (and in particular their private addresses) in response to information requests under FOIA. The High Court found that the IT had given proper weight to MPs' expectations of keeping such information private. The High Court added that anyone who wanted to find out the information from existing sources would probably have little difficulty in doing so, and that in light of the flaws in the current system of accounting for such expenses, there was a pressing public interest in their disclosure. | |
UT | The UT ordered the Ministry of Defence to disclose information relating to the extraordinary rendition of prisoners following a request made under the FOIA. The UT has questioned the previous UT decision in DEFRA v Information Commissioner and another [2011] UKUT 39 (AAC), which found that public authorities were entitled as of right to raise exemptions under the FOIA for the first time when a matter reached tribunal stage. The decision in APG also found that the exemption in section 12 of FOIA should be claimed when a request is first responded to and that the disclosure of anonymised data that would not allow people (other than the disclosing authority) to identify individuals does not constitute the processing of personal data and does not attract the exemption in section 40 of FOIA. | ||
FTTIR | Montague v the Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0177) (2012) | The FTTIR has dismissed an appeal in which the appellant called for the disclosure of information relating to donations to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) (a climate change think tank). The FTTIR dismissed the appeal holding that section 40(2) did apply and after considering the conditions in section 40(3) of FOIA (relating to the contravention of any data protection principles) it was clear that there was no evidence that consent had been given by the donor to the disclosure of their identity. | |
FTTIR | Cobain v the Information Commissioner and another (EA/2011/0112 and 0113) (2012) | The FTTIR has ruled that certain information requested by a Guardian journalist from the Crown Prosecution Service concerning the 1998 prosecution of Nick Griffin, the British National Party leader, under the Public Order Act 1986 was not exempt from disclosure under the personal data exemption contained in section 40(2) of the FOIA. | |
FTTIR | Greenwood v the Information Commissioner and another (EA/2011/0131 and 0137) (2011) | The FTTIR has held that a register of interests of senior council officers held by Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council must be disclosed, following a request made under the FOIA. | |
FTTIR | Smith v the Information Commissioner and another UKFTT (EA/2011/0006) (GRC) (2011) | The FTTIR has upheld a previous IC decision, holding that Devon and Cornwall Constabulary was not required to disclose certain pieces of personal information under the personal data exemption (section 40(2)) of the FOIA. The information requested related to which teaching staff at schools in the area had been investigated, cautioned or charged under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. | |
FTTIR | T W Gibson v the Information Commissioner, (EA/2010/0095) (2011) | The FTTIR held that Craven District Council had to disclose the financial details of its former Chief Executive Officer's compromise agreement as these concerned the use of public funds. The tribunal agreed that most of the information in the agreement was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2), as there was a strong expectation of privacy in relation to a compromise agreement and as a result disclosure would be unfair. However, it did not consider it reasonable for the ex-CEO or the council to expect that the information in the agreement relating to the use of public funds could be hidden from the public on the basis of a confidentiality clause agreed between them. | |
FTTIR | John Pycroft v the Information Commissioner, (EA/2010/0165) (2011) | The FTTIR upheld the ICO's decision that Stroud District Council did not have to disclose its former housing director's early retirement package as it was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2). | |
FTTIR | Dun v the Information Commissioner and another (EA/2010/0060) (2011) | The FTTIR ruled that the National Audit Office (NAO) had to disclose records of employee grievances made against the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), which the NAO reviewed as part of its investigation. The ICO had held that the records were exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA, but the FTTIR held that, as they were redacted, only those who made a complaint, were the subject of a complaint or processed a complaint would be able to identify any of the parties involved. Further, these categories of people would not learn anything new from the disclosure of the redacted information. | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR partially upheld the ICO's decision as to whether information about the performance-related payment scheme applying to senior board members of the Olympic Delivery Authority fell within the personal data exemption under section 40 of FOIA, but ordered disclosure of some of the requested information. | ||
FTTIR | Andrew Bousfield v the Information Commissioner and another (EA/2009/0113) (2010) | The FTTIR upheld the ICO's decision that a hospital trust was not required to disclose a doctor's details in a settlement agreement, which had already been disclosed in redacted form, as the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA. | |
FTTIR | David Cox v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0092) (2010) | The FTTIR upheld the ICO's decision that the Insolvency Service was not required to disclose its assessment of a director's actions within an insolvent company, known as a "D return", as the assessment was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA. | |
FTTIR | Guardian Newspapers Ltd v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0070) (2010) | The FTTIR upheld the ICO's decision that information requested from Ofsted concerning disqualified persons was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA. The information requested included details about Ofsted's decisions to waive disqualifications from working in childcare. The FTTIR confirmed that the disclosure of the information would contravene the first data protection principle as its disclosure would not be fair and lawful, and because none of the conditions in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 1998 were satisfied. | |
FTTIR | Thomas Wilson v the Information Commissioner (EA/2009/0082) (2010) | The FTTIR upheld the ICO's decision that despite a public authority's duty under section 19 of FOIA to adopt and maintain a publication scheme, it was possible for there to be exempt information within a class of information listed in an authority's publication scheme. The Council was entitled to rely on the exemption from disclosure contained in section 40(2) in relation to a request for specified bank statements, disclosure of which would breach a compromise agreement entered into between the Council and a former employee, following the termination of her employment. | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR allowed, in part, an appeal from the ICO's decision that information in a police report of an inquiry, following the conviction of an offender for killing his wife, was exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The FTTIR rejected CC's argument that the all of the information was exempt under section 40(2) and found that in most cases condition 6 of Schedule 2 or condition 5 of Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1988 was met and the processing of the information was fair, so the exemption was not engaged. | ||
FTTIR | Roberts v the Information Commissioner (EA/2009/0035) (2010) | The FTTIR rejected an appeal against a decision notice published by the ICO finding that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) had not been obliged to provide certain information about the creators of documents held within a BIS database due to the information being exempt under section 40 of FOIA. | |
IT | In a case concerning information about a former panellist on the GMC, the IT, overturning the ICO's decision, held that condition 6 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1988 was met and therefore the exemption for third party data in section 40(2) of FOIA was not engaged. | ||
IT | Guardian News and Media Limited (GNM) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2008/0084) (2009) | The IT dismissed an appeal by GNM against a decision of the ICO following the newspaper's unsuccessful request for information on disciplinary action taken by the Lord Chancellor against the judiciary. The newspaper had contested the ICO's finding that the information requested was exempt under section 40 of FOIA. The IT upheld the ICO's reliance on section 40. | |
IT | Tony Harcup and Yorkshire Forward (YF) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0058) (2008) | The IT partially allowed an appeal against the ICO's decision that YF was entitled to withhold the names of delegates who had attended events or corporate hospitality organised by it. The IT rejected the ICO's finding that such information amounted to "personal data" under section 40 of FOIA and was exempt from disclosure. The IT held that, taking into account the two factors of biographical significance and focus identified in Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746, the disclosure of the names of those attending YF events did not involve the release of personal data. | |
IT | The IT ruled that BERR had to disclose records of meetings held in 2005 between the Department of Trade and Industry (as it then was) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), subject to redaction of certain material. | ||
IT | London Borough of Camden (LBC) v the Information Commissioner (EA 2007/0021) (2007) | The IT allowed an appeal by the LBC against a decision notice of the ICO requiring it to disclose the names and other identifying information of individuals who had been subject to anti-social behaviour orders. The IT held that such disclosure would amount to unfair processing of personal data and that it was not warranted, because the benefit it would provide to serious journalistic research was outweighed by the damage that would be done by belated publicity. | |
IT | Rob Evans and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2006/0027) (2007) | The IT dismissed an appeal by the MoD against the ICO's decision ordering the disclosure of the staff directory of the Defence Export Services Organisation, part of the MoD, to a journalist. It rejected the MoD's arguments that the directory was exempt from disclosure under section 40 of FOIA. Although the IT accepted that the information constituted personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998, it concerned the staff members' public lives and activities, not their private lives. However, the IT held that the names of junior members of staff should be redacted, as should the telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of all staff, unless they had been disclosed elsewhere. | |
IT | The IT ruled that the addresses of vacant residential properties owned by individuals, which had been requested from a council under FOIA, were exempt from disclosure under section 40. The IT concluded that once the addresses of the empty properties had been identified, it was likely that the identity of the owners could be traced. The disclosure of the addresses would not be permitted under the Data Protection Act 1998 because, among other things, the prejudice to the rights and legitimate interests of the owners, due to the risk of crime against empty properties and loss of property value, outweighed the applicant's legitimate interest in disclosure. | ||
IT | Lancashire County Council (Council) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2006/0047) (2007) | The IT ruled that redacted information relating to traders successfully prosecuted for selling alcohol to under-age children, which had been requested from the Council under FOIA, was exempt from disclosure under section 40. The IT held that the information to be produced should not include the names, addresses, business or trading names, contact details and dates of birth of any individuals who were the subject of the prosecutions. | |
IT | The IT ordered the HoC to disclose a detailed breakdown of the already published aggregate figure for travel claims by MPs. The HoC had refused the original requests for information as it believed that it was exempt from disclosure under section 40. The IT upheld the ICO's decision notices, finding that the HoC should disclose the disputed information. | Information Tribunal orders disclosure of MPs' travel expenses (www.practicallaw.com/9-212-7026) | |
IT | The IT upheld a decision of the ICO and concluded that information provided by a police informant on an expressly confidential basis was covered by the exemption in section 40 of FOIA. | ||
IT | A v the Information Commissioner (EA/2006/0012) (2006) | The IT found that a public authority was entitled to redact sections of a document from which third-party individuals could be identified. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the London Borough of Hackney Council (Council) (FS50315994) (2011) | The complainant requested information about the East Marsh wind turbine survey. The Council handled the request under FOIA and disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder as personal data citing section 40(2) FOIA. The ICO held that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR. The ICO held, under regulation 13 of EIR, that the withheld information was not personal data. The ICO also found that regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) did not apply. The ICO therefore ordered the Council to disclose the information. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (Council) (FS50292926) (2011) | The ICO found that the Council was wrong to apply the exemption relating to personal information set out in section 40 to a request for the addresses of all Council-owned houses and flats. The ICO accepted that the addresses constituted personal information, but ordered their disclosure as disclosing them would constitute lawful processing under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 26 January 2011 (www.practicallaw.com/0-504-5994) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Middlesbrough Council (Council) (FS50305568) (2011) | Following the complainant's request for information about statistics relating to an electronic constituency casework and information service operated by the Council for its elected members, the ICO ordered the Council to disclose the statistics broken down by individual councillors. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Buckinghamshire County Council (Council) (FS50233989) (2010) | The complainant requested the names of councillors who were members of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). The ICO decided that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold their names. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the City of London Police (CLP) (FS50262907) (2010) | The complainant made a request for information to CLP for details of the total remuneration package of the Chief Constable. The CLP provided some of the information requested, but withheld the remaining information applying section 40(2). The ICO agreed that some of the withheld information was exempt from disclosure. However, the ICO determined that further information should be released. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the London Borough of Waltham Forest (Council) (FS50210000) (2010) | The complainant requested a copy of a report prepared by the Council's anti-fraud team. The Council refused disclosure of the report under sections 22, 31(1)(g), 40(2) and 43(2) of FOIA. The ICO held the exemption at section 40(2) to be engaged and identified items of personal data that required redaction prior to disclosure of the report. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 17 July 2010 (www.practicallaw.com/6-502-7845) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Bexley Council (Council) (FS50280917) (2010) | The ICO held that the Council had been correct to refuse to release details about the individuals responsible for monitoring the use of a former Council leader's purchasing card. The ICO found that the release of the information would breach the first data protection principle. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 17 July 2010 (www.practicallaw.com/6-502-7845) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (Council) (FS50178553) (2009) | The complainant requested information held by the Council in relation to the settlement of employment tribunal proceedings brought by six former council employees under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 who were dismissed for whistle blowing. The ICO decided that neither sections 40(2) or 41 were engaged. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 28 October 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-500-5803) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Governing Body of Bedgrove Junior School (School) (FS50194697) (2009) | The complainants requested recorded information from the school about the SATs results of its Year 5 pupils. The ICO determined that some information had been correctly withheld by virtue of section 40(2). This information consisted of the names of children and letters relating to their teaching requirements. The ICO did however find that an anonymised version of the information should have been provided. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 26 August 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/9-422-3097) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Governing Body of Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School (School) (FS50236990) (2009) | The complainant requested the residential postcodes of all the School's staff and pupils. The request was refused citing section 40 of FOIA. The ICO investigated and found that the information withheld was personal data and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle and was therefore exempt under section 40(2). | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 26 August 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/9-422-3097) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Ealing Council and Coventry Council (Councils) (FS50222631 and FS50222633) (2009) | The ICO found that the Councils had incorrectly applied the exemption contained in section 40 of FOIA to requests for information. In both cases the complainant had requested statistics, on the number of children taken into care, adopted, placed on a special guardianship order and placed on a residence order. The Councils refused the requests on the basis that the information constituted personal data and section 40 of FOIA applied. The ICO held that the requested information was not personal data and the withheld information should be released. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 26 August 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/9-422-3097) |
ICO | The Complainant v the London Borough of Bromley (Council) (FS50174518) (2009) | The complainant requested details from the Council of the annual pension and lump sum payment for an ex employee and whether the lump sum was tax free. The ICO found that the Council was right not to disclose the information as section 40(2) applied. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 26 August 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/9-422-3097) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Salford City Council (Council) (FS50222632) (2009) | The complainant requested statistics from the Council on the number of children taken into care, adopted, placed on a special guardianship order and placed on a residence order broken down by age and month. The ICO found that the requested information was not personal data, and therefore section 40(2) was not engaged. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 July 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-386-8062) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Buckinghamshire County Council (Council) (FS50160381) (2009) | The complainant had requested data and other information about the operation of the 11+ system in Buckinghamshire schools from the Council. The Council provided some information but refused to provide some raw data. The ICO found that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested data where there were more than five children taking the 11+ test at the school. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 10 June 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-386-2934) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Financial Services Authority (FSA) (FS50193437) (2009) | The ICO found that the FSA had been wrong to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held certain information. The complainant had requested information about any concerns the FSA had regarding the management of the Leeds City Credit Union. The FSA cited sections 31(3), 40(5) and 43(3) of FOIA and stated that the public interest test favoured maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether it held any such information. The ICO disagreed and if the information was held, the FSA was required to disclose it to the complainant or to issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17(1) of FOIA. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 10 June 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-386-2934) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Magherafelt District Council (Council) (FS50203810) (2009) | The complainant had requested information about disciplinary action taken by the Council in the previous three years but had made it clear that it did not seek the disclosure of any personal information. The Council provided some information, but withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA, the information relating to the discipline itself and reasons for dismissal. The Council held an anonymised schedule of action taken but claimed that, given the small number of staff involved, it may still be possible to identify individuals from the schedule. The ICO found that it would not be possible to identify individuals and that the schedule did not constitute personal information. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 10 June 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-386-2934) |
ICO | The Complainant v the London Borough of Camden (Council) (FS50176463) (2009) | The complainant asked the Council for information regarding any disciplinary action that it had asked to have taken against two named council officials. The Council refused to confirm or deny that it held the information sought, citing section 40(2) of FOIA. The ICO found that the Council was excluded from its duty to respond to the request under section 1(1)(a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i), because in responding to the request it would have had to disclose information which, if held, would constitute the personal data of named officials. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 25 March 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/8-385-4902) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Wiltshire County Council (Council) (FS50152758) (2009) | The complainant requested an investigatory report relating to the disciplinary hearing of a head teacher. The Council withheld the information applying sections 40 and 41 of FOIA. The ICO found that section 40(2) was engaged. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 25 March 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/8-385-4902) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (CCSP) (FS50205686) (2009) | The ICO found that the CCSP had incorrectly applied the exemption in section 40(5) of FOIA. The CCSP had cited section 40(5) of FOIA as the basis for refusing to confirm or deny it had information relating to reports of anti-social behaviour in a specified postcode area. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 4 March 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/2-385-1949) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Shropshire County Council (Council) (FS50181762) (2009) | The complainant requested information concerning an investigation into, and subsequent resignation of, a former Head of Communications at the Council. Although the Council released some information, it refused parts of the request under section 40(2) of FOIA. The ICO held that the Council was correct to withhold this information under section 40(2). | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 4 March 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/2-385-1949) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (FS50088727) (2009) | The complainant submitted a request to Ofsted for information concerning a registered provider of nursery and day care for young children. Ofsted refused citing section 40(2) of FOIA in relation to first part of the request. The ICO found that some of the information in the request contained the nursery provider's personal data, disclosure of which would not breach the data protection principles and therefore the information did not engage section 40(2). Where the information concerned the nursery provider's sensitive personal data, the ICO found that section 40(2) was engaged and was appropriately applied by Ofsted. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 4 March 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/2-385-1949) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Leicester City Council (Council) (FS50184888) (2009) | The ICO was asked by an unsuccessful job applicant to determine whether the Council should be required to disclose the job application forms of candidates who had applied for two council jobs. The Council had refused to disclose the forms, claiming section 40 of FOIA. The ICO accepted that the release of the application forms in their entirety would be likely to constitute unfair processing, and considered that the exemption at section 40(2) could be applied in respect of some of the information. The ICO decided that the exemption at section 40(2) did not justify withholding the information in its entirety. Some information about applicants' experience and qualifications could be provided in an anonymised form. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) (FS50182413) (2009) | The complainant requested the amount of money paid to consultants involved in London's bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games. DCMS refused to provide the information requested under section 40(2) of FOIA. The ICO investigated and found that section 40(2) was not engaged. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 April 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-8237) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Caerphilly County Borough Council (Council) (FS50145203) (2009) | The complainant requested information such as a breakdown of costs charged by the Council for repairs to his home. The ICO held that the personal data of the complainant was exempt under section 40(1) of FOIA (but that the Council should have treated it as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998). | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 April 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-8237) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (FS50145203) (2008) | The ICO ordered Ofsted to release the names of 29,970 child care managers in England, and their relevant place of employment, following a request under FOIA. The ICO rejected Ofsted's argument that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA. The ICO found that disclosure of the information would not contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 because, among other things, many of the managers' names were already in the public domain, and there was a legitimate public interest in knowing the identity of those responsible at a day-to-day level for the care of children. | ICO orders Ofsted to release information on child care managers (www.practicallaw.com/3-384-5019) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) (FS50169734) (2008) | The ICO found that section 40(5)(b)(i) of FOIA exempted the NMC from the obligation to confirm or deny whether it had certain information requested by the complainant as it held the applicable information would have revealed whether any complaints had been made against named individuals. | |
ICO | The Complainant v Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales (HMCI) (FS50086498) (2007) | The complainant requested information relating to complaints made against two named individual officers of the HMCI. The HMCI refused to confirm or deny that any information of the description requested was in fact held by the authority, citing the exemption at section 40. The ICO decided in this case that the HMCI applied section 40 correctly. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Braintree District Council (Council) (FS50066606) (2007) | The complainant made a request for a list of addresses of council properties owned by the Council. The ICO held that the request was wrongly refused as there would be no breach of the data protection principles and therefore section 40 did not apply. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | The FTTIR dismissed an appeal brought against a council who refused, under section 41 of the FOIA, to release case notes it had received from the care home who looked a woman until shortly before her death to her sisters. | ||
FTTIR | London Borough of Newham v Information Commissioner, EA/2011/0288 | The FTTIR heard an appeal relating to an application by an unsuccessful bidder for a casino licence, in which it sought disclosure from Newham Council under section 1 of the FOIA of information relating to the winning bid. The council responded by disclosing some of the information, in redacted form, and citing the exemptions under section 41 (actionable breach of confidence) and section 43 (trade secrets) to justify withholding the remainder of the requested information. The tribunal found that the information was confidential (having been disclosed against an express promise of confidentiality) and that its disclosure would have caused commercial disadvantage to the successful bidder. The tribunal also dismissed a ground of appeal based on section 44 of the FOIA (applicable where disclosure is prohibited by statute). | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR has upheld a decision of the Information Commissioner that the Avon and Somerset police authority was exempt under the FOIA from disclosing confidential minutes of board meetings of the directors of a public-private joint venture company in which it was a shareholder. The exemption arose under section 41 (covering disclosure that would constitute an actionable breach of confidence) and section 43(2) (which protects commercial interests). | ||
UT | The UT, overturning the Information Commissioner's decision, has held that advocacy correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers in 2004 and 2005 was disclosable under the FOIA. In broad terms its ruling was that, although there were cogent arguments for non-disclosure, the public interest benefits of disclosure of advocacy correspondence falling within the claimant journalist's requests generally outweighed the public interest benefits of non-disclosure. Consequently, there was no exemption from disclosure under sections 37(1), 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. Note: The UT later held in February 2013 that lists and schedules of advocacy correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers from 2004 and 2005 were disclosable under the FOIA. | February 2013 decision: Upper Tribunal rules correspondence lists between Prince Charles and ministers disclosable under FOIA (www.practicallaw.com/6-524-3378). | |
ICO | ICO Decision notice FS50438560, 21 May 2012 | The ICO published a decision notice upholding the FSA's refusal to disclose a copy of a report on the Lehman Group that had been commissioned by the trustees of the Pearl Group. The Commissioner concludes in this decision that section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) provides a statutory bar from disclosure. Therefore, the FSA had correctly applied the FOIA when it refused to provide a copy of the report on the ground that the report was confidential information received by it for the purposes of carrying out its regulatory functions under FSMA. When considering whether section 348 applied to the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner took into account previous decisions relating to the application of section 348 as a statutory prohibition on disclosure. | ICO upholds FSA refusal to disclose confidential information (www.practicallaw.com/3-519-7943) |
FTTIR | The FTTIR, upholding the IC's decision, has ruled that an e-mail by an employee of the Common Council of the City of London to another employee reporting the substance of a telephone conversation with a third party was exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The request concerned the council's dealings with Church of Scientology organisations. The tribunal agreed that the exemption in section 41 of the FOIA covering third party confidentiality applied. | ||
Court of Appeal | Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) (2010) EWCA Civ 1214 | The Court of Appeal ruled that documents relating to a company's financial model and profit margin should not be disclosed under section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (ACA 1998) and that commercial confidential information could be considered as a possession under Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. | |
UT | IICUS v the Information Commissioner and others (2011) UKUT 205 (AAC) | The UT has allowed an appeal against a decision of the FTTIR on the basis that the FTTIR failed to hold an oral hearing following a request from one of the parties for an oral hearing to take place. The FTTIR had ordered the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to disclose to the complainant information provided by a company to Companies House. | FTTIR must hold hearing if a party requests one (Upper Tribunal) (www.practicallaw.com/6-506-3211) |
FTTIR | Department for Business, Innovation and Skills v the Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0044) (2011) | The FTTIR has ruled that information requested by a Bloomberg journalist from the Export Control Organisation (part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)) concerning licences issued for the export of "controlled goods" to Iran was exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. The FTTIR, overturning the IC's decision, found that there was an actionable breach of confidence and consequently the exemption under section 41(1) was engaged. | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR has held that information supplied by UK Athletics Limited to the UK Sports Council on the progress of elite athletics towards the 2012 Olympics was confidential information which was exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the FOIA. | ||
IT | The HEFCE lost its appeal from the ICO's decision that information relating to the state of buildings at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) was exempt from disclosure under section 41 of FOIA. The IT considered the meaning of "actionable" in section 41 by reference to Hansard, and concluded that the HEFCE had to show that a claim of breach of confidence on a balance of probabilities would succeed; it was not sufficient to show that such a claim was arguable. | ||
IT | Department of Health (DoH) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2008/0018) (2008) | The IT held that section 41 did not apply to a contract entered into by the DoH, as the contract was not information provided to it by a third party. The IT did accept that some of the information in the schedules to the contract was exempt from disclosure under section 43 (commercial interests). | |
IT | Pauline Buck v the Information Commissioner and Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (as an additional party) (Trust) (EA/2006/0090) (2007) | The IT upheld the ICO's decision that the Trust was right to refuse to disclose a deceased individual's medical records. It agreed that the medical records were exempt from disclosure under section 41 of FOIA. The IT held, taking account of Articles 10 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh that in maintaining disclosure. It also upheld the ICO's decision that, despite the absence of authority, the duty of confidence could survive the death of a person to whom the information related. | |
IT | Derry City Council (Council) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2006/0014) (2006) | The IT upheld a decision of the ICO and concluded that information relating to the financial arrangements governing Ryanair's use of Derry City Airport should be disclosed to the public. The IT held that the Council could not rely on the exemption contained in section 41, as the exemption was not designed to cover information which the public authority had generated itself and that it did therefore not apply to contracts or documents created in the course of contractual negotiations unless the document recorded more than just the mutual obligations of the contracting parties (for example, technical information). | |
ICO | The Complainant v Liverpool City Council (Council) (FS50273227) (2010) | The ICO ordered the disclosure of information contained in a contract between the Council and Liverpool Direct Ltd, a joint venture company set up between the Council and BT to manage all IT, tax and payroll services within the Council. The Council received a request for the disclosure under FOIA and disclosed a redacted copy of the contract with information on limitations of liability and termination payments removed. The Council claimed that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 41 and 43 of FOIA. The ICO held that neither exemption applied. | ICO orders disclosure of confidential information (www.practicallaw.com/8-504-3284) |
ICO | The Complainant v the University of Cambridge (FS50124622) (2009) | The complainant requested minutes and papers relating to meetings dealing with graduate student rents. The University cited section 41 of FOIA as the basis for refusing to disclose the information. Section 41 of FOIA could not be engaged as the Bursars' Committee did not have a separate legal personality from the University. Therefore, there was no third party to whom the University owed an obligation of confidence to and the ICO ordered disclosure of the information. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 24 June 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/0-386-3137) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (Council) (FS50178553) (2009) | The complainant requested information held by the Council in relation to the settlement of employment tribunal proceedings brought by six former council employees under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 who were dismissed for whistle blowing. The Council refused to provide this information as it believed it was exempt under section 40(2) of FOIA. Also the Council cited section 41 on the basis that the information was provided in confidence. The ICO decided that neither sections 40(2) or 41 were engaged. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 28 October 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-500-5803) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department of Health (DoH) (FS50088736) (2009) | The ICO held that the bulk of a contract between the DoH and one of its service providers had to be disclosed following a request under FOIA. The ICO found that the exemption in section 40 did not apply and required a redacted version of the contract to be disclosed by the DoH. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) (FS50088736) (2008) | The complainant requested the full details of 22 non-safety recalls which were recorded on the VOSA's database in 2006. The VOSA withheld the information by virtue of the exemptions contained in sections 41 and 43(2) of FOIA. The ICO found that neither of the exemptions were engaged and ordered the VOSA to disclose the requested information. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (Council) (FS50123488) (2008) | The ICO ruled that the Council had to disclose documents showing the commission payments made by investment managers to brokers on behalf of its employees' pension fund. The payments were directly deducted from the pension fund. The Council refused to disclose the information, relying on the exemptions contained in section 41 and section 43 of FOIA. The ICO ruled that the section 41 exemption was not applicable to most of the information, because the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence meant that a disclosure of this information would not be actionable in law. The ICO made similar rulings against a total of 32 local authorities. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (Trust) (FS50071069) (2006) | The ICO held that the Trust was right to refuse disclosure of a deceased individual's medical records in response to a request made under FOIA. The ICO decided that it would be unconscionable to disclose a deceased individual's records, especially as disclosure under FOIA was potentially to the world at large. Such disclosure would also be actionable as a breach of confidence, as the deceased's personal representatives would have standing to bring proceedings. | ICO rules against disclosure of deceased person's medical records (www.practicallaw.com/4-205-6007) |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | The FTTIR has upheld a decision of the IC concerning the amount of information that the Serious Fraud Office must disclose under the FOIA relating to its investigation into the collapse of the Equitable Life Assurance Society. The IC found that the SFO was exempt from having to disclose any further information as it was subject to the exemptions in sections 30 and 42 of FOIA and the public interest favoured maintaining these exemptions. The FTTIR has now upheld this decision, holding that the strong public interest in maintaining a safe space to encourage the collection of information to facilitate investigations and successful prosecutions in the criminal arena outweighed the public interest in providing further transparency over the collapse. | ||
FTTIR | Uttlesford District Council v Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0269 & 0285) | The FTTIR upheld the council's appeal against the Information Commissioner's decisions that the council should disclose draft committee reports and e-mails between officers and members of the council on whether particular members were eligible to vote on a planning application. The Tribunal was satisfied that the draft reports passing between the council and its legal adviser fell within the scope of legal professional privilege. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's finding that there was a substantial public interest in how the final report to members had evolved. | |
High Court | The High Court partially upheld an appeal against an IT decision ordering BERR to disclose various documents under FOIA relating to the inclusion of regulation 17 in the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, including various documents that had passed between BERR and the Lord Chancellor's department relating to the form of, and the reasons for, regulation 17. BERR refused disclosure on the basis of the exemptions contained in section 35 and section 42 of FOIA. The High Court dismissed BERR's appeal under the section 35 exemption, but upheld it in relation to the section 42 exemption. It ruled that the IT had failed to give sufficient weight to the in-built public interest in non-disclosure once it was established that legal professional privilege attached to the document in question. | ||
FTTIR | Grace Szucs v the Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0072) (2011) | The FTTIR has upheld the IC's decision that the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) did not have to disclose legal advice provided to it as it was exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the FOIA, which applies to information covered by legal professional privilege. | Information Tribunal rules legal advice to IPO is not disclosable (www.practicallaw.com/3-508-2485) |
IT | Mersey Tunnel Users Association (MTUA) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0052) (2008) | The IT allowed an appeal against the ICO's decision and ordered disclosure of legal advice on public-interest grounds. The IT found that advice given in 1994 by legal counsel to MTUA on the authority's powers under a debt administration order was subject to legal professional privilege. However, the public interest in maintaining the exemption under section 42 of FOIA was outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. | |
IT | The IT applying section 42 of FOIA, found that the Council was entitled to withhold legal advice it had received from a barrister in relation to care proceedings regarding the appellant's granddaughter. | ||
ICO | The Complainant v the Department of Health (DoH) (FS50402010) (2011) | The Complainant made a request under section 1(1) of the FOIA to the DoH for disclosure of any legal advice on competition law given to the Secretary of State or other ministers in relation to a specific aspect of the Health and Social Care Bill. The DoH refused to disclose the information on the grounds that the legal professional privilege exemption (section 42) applied. The IC confirmed that the withheld information met the criteria for the legal professional privilege exemption under section 42 of the FOIA. The IC applied the public interest test and found in favour of the complainant and the DoH was required to disclose the information. The IC concluded that although it was a finely balanced case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He did not consider that disclosure would lead to the DoH or its legal advisers failing to record legal advice thoroughly in the future. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | London Borough of Newham v Information Commissioner, EA/2011/0288 | The FTTIR has heard an appeal relating to an application by an unsuccessful bidder for a casino licence, in which it sought disclosure from Newham Council under section 1 of the FOIA of information relating to the winning bid. The council responded by disclosing some of the information, in redacted form, and citing the exemptions under section 41 (actionable breach of confidence) and section 43 (trade secrets) to justify withholding the remainder of the requested information. The tribunal found that the information was confidential (having been disclosed against an express promise of confidentiality) and that its disclosure would have caused commercial disadvantage to the successful bidder. The tribunal also dismissed a ground of appeal based on section 44 of the FOIA (applicable where disclosure is prohibited by statute). | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR has upheld a decision of the Information Commissioner that the Avon and Somerset police authority was exempt under the FOIA from disclosing confidential minutes of board meetings of the directors of a public-private joint venture company in which it was a shareholder. The exemption arose under section 41 (covering disclosure that would constitute an actionable breach of confidence) and section 43(2) (which protects commercial interests). | ||
UT | The UT dismissed UK Coal's appeal of the decision of the FTTIR that information relating to UK Coal's commercial management of land that it owned should be disclosed in a redacted form. The UT rejected UK Coal's submissions that the FTTIR's interpretation and application of section 43 of the FOIA failed adequately to protect the company's commercial interests and that it erred in law by taking too narrow a view of what was "core financial information". | ||
ICO | The Complainant v FSA (FS50417870) (2012) | The ICO has published a decision notice overruling the FSA's decision to withhold disclosure under section 43(2) of the FOIA of the names of certain life companies referred to in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's report on Equitable Life published in 2008. The ICO concluded that section 43(2) of FOIA was not engaged, that the FSA should disclose the requested information to the complainant, and that the FSA had also breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA, as it had failed to provide the complainant with the requested information within 20 working days of receiving the request. | |
FTTIR | Visser v Information Commissioner and another (EA 2011/0188) | The FTTIR held that a piece of information can still be commercially sensitive even if it is two years old at the time of the request. | |
ICO | The Complainant v Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) (FS50406981) (2011) | The ICO has published a decision on a request under the FOIA for disclosure of the financial details contained in a European Commission state aid decision relating to state aid granted to Post Office Limited. The IC concluded that most of the relevant information did fall within the commercial interests exemption in section 43(2) of the FOIA. | |
Court of Appeal | Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) (2010) EWCA Civ 1214 | The Court of Appeal ruled that documents relating to a company's financial model and profit margin should not be disclosed under section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (ACA) and that commercial confidential information could be considered as a possession under Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. | |
UT | IICUS v the Information Commissioner and others (2011) UKUT 205 (AAC) | The UT has allowed an appeal against a decision of the FTTIR on the basis that the FTTIR failed to hold an oral hearing following a request from one of the parties for an oral hearing to take place. The FTTIR had ordered the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to disclose to the complainant information provided by a company to Companies House. | FTTIR must hold hearing if a party requests one (Upper Tribunal) (www.practicallaw.com/6-506-3211) |
FTTIR | The FTTIR, allowing an appeal by the BBC, has ruled that information concerning the actual sum paid by the BBC to One Transport Ltd, a taxi company, and what proportion of the BBC's taxi bill that represented, was exempt under the commercial-interest exemption in section 43(2) of the FOIA. The IC had held that the information should be disclosed, rejecting the BBC's argument that this would undermine its negotiating position in future tenders. | ||
FTTIR | Channel Four Television Corporation v the Information Commissioner, EA/2010/0134 (2011) | The FTTIR held that Channel 4 had to disclose the redacted version of a distribution agreement with Sky when parts of it were exempt under the commercial interest exemption in section 43(2). Channel 4 unsuccessfully argued that where the substantive part of a long contract was not disclosable by reason of section 43(2), there was no need for a public authority to go through a detailed analysis of the contract redacting the exempt parts; this was disproportionate. | |
FTTIR | Nottinghamshire County Council v the Information Commissioner (Case No EA/2010/0142) (2011) | The FTTIR held that Nottingham County Council was required to disclose parts of a waste private finance initiative contract it entered into with Veolia Environmental Services. It was not, however, required to disclose certain commercial information relating to an option to lease land from UK Coal Mining Ltd to host a proposed waste management facility to be managed by Veolia. Further, information about UK Coal's commercial use of the land was not environmental and should be considered under FOIA not the EIR. | FTT (Information Rights) rules on waste PFI contract appeal (www.practicallaw.com/1-505-1319) |
FTTIR | Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0073) (2010) | The FTTIR held that the disputed information either fell within the exemption for trade secrets or was such that its disclosure would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of the government department. However, it found that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the relevant exemption, except in respect of the supplier's financial model (which contains highly commercially sensitive information) and was exempt from disclosure. | |
IT | Fred Keene v the Central Office of Information (COI) (EA/2008/0097) (2009) | The IT overturned the ICO's decision and ordered the COI to disclose information relating to tenders from businesses interested in providing it with reprographic services in 2005. The COI declined to disclose to the complainant their evaluation forms of the other businesses tendering for the work, on the basis of the exemption in section 43(2) of FOIA. The IT found that the evaluation forms did not contain commercially sensitive information, and that businesses were unlikely to be deterred from tendering for COI business if there was a risk that certain information might be disclosed. | |
IT | The IT upheld a decision by the ICO that copies of course materials for a UCLAN degree were not exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The IT dismissed UCLAN's arguments that the course materials were exempt under section 43(2). The IT accepted that UCLAN's interests in teaching materials produced for its degree courses were "commercial", but did not agree that its commercial interests were likely to be prejudiced. This was because, among other things, competitors were unlikely to exploit the material, copyright infringements were unlikely within the academic community and publishing the course materials might in fact be a commercial advantage. | ||
IT | Department of Health (DoH) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2008/0018) (2008) | The IT held that the bulk of a contract between the DoH and one of its service providers had to be disclosed following a request under FOIA. However, the IT found that the disclosure of certain parts of the schedules to the contract that were commercially sensitive would be likely to prejudice the DoH or the service provider and that, in respect of some of that information, the public interest was best served by maintaining that exemption. | |
IT | John Connor Press Associates Limited (JCP) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0005) (2006) | The IT considered whether disclosure of the information withheld from JCP would have been "likely" to cause such prejudice to the National Maritime Museum (NMM), at the time when disclosure was refused, by undermining its negotiating position with another artist. The IT concluded that the NMM had failed to demonstrate a sufficient risk of prejudice to its commercial interests to justify the exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA. | Freedom of Information Act: exemption (www.practicallaw.com/6-202-0442) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department of Health (DoH) (FS50303047) (2011) | The complainant requested information from the DoH regarding the costs associated with the development, distribution, promotion and purchasing of the flu vaccine supplied by GlaxoSmithKline and Baxter Healthcare Ltd since 2007. The DoH refused to provide information relating to the costs of purchasing the vaccine, relying on section 43(2) of FOIA). The ICO ordered the DoH to disclose high-level information relating to the costs of purchasing the vaccine but did not require the DoH to provide a pricing breakdown. | ICO orders DoH to disclose flu vaccination costs information (www.practicallaw.com/4-504-5807) |
ICO | The Complainant v Liverpool City Council (Council) (FS50273227) (2010) | The ICO ordered the disclosure of information contained in a contract between the Council and Liverpool Direct Ltd, a joint venture company set up between the Council and BT to manage all IT, tax and payroll services within the Council. The Council received a request for the disclosure under FOIA and disclosed a redacted copy of the contract with information on limitations of liability and termination payments removed. The Council claimed that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 41 and 43 of FOIA. The ICO held that neither exemption applied. | ICO orders disclosure of confidential information (www.practicallaw.com/8-504-3284) |
ICO | The Complainant v the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (FS50228493) (2010) | The ICO ordered the disclosure of details of any incentives offered by the BBC as part of its contract for TV licensing services with Capita. The BBC rejected the request believing that the release of the information would prejudice its commercial interests and those of Capita and therefore was exempt from disclosure under section 43 of FOIA. The ICO held that it was in the public's interest for the information to be released because the BBC must be open to public scrutiny in order to show that they provide value for money. | ICO orders disclosure of confidential information (www.practicallaw.com/8-504-3284) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Bury Council (Council) (FS50286978) (2010) | The complainant requested information from the Council relating to a review of its civic suites sites. The review document included recommendations about the future of the sites and their income and expenditure records. The Council disclosed some of the information requested but withheld the remainder citing the section 43(2) exemption. The complainant complained to the ICO. The ICO held that although the commercial interest exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA does apply to information relating to civic suites owned by the Council, the public interest in disclosure outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Caerphilly County Borough Council (Council) (FS50145203) (2009) | The complainant requested information such as a breakdown of costs charged by the Council for repairs to his home. The Council provided some information but withheld the remainder under section 43 of FOIA. The complainant also requested information regarding a letter to the Council complaining about him. The ICO held that some of the information in the request had been properly withheld under section 43(2), but that the breakdown of costs had not, and should be released to the complainant. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 April 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-8237) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Home Office (FS50131117) (2009) | The ICO found that the Home Office had incorrectly applied sections 31 and 43 of FOIA to a request for information concerning the evaluation and recommendations for improvement following a poor performance assessment of the Nottingham and West Yorkshire police forces conducted by the Policing Standards Unit. The ICO also found that section 36 of FOIA was engaged, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 28 October 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-500-5803) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Financial Services Authority (FSA) (FS50193437) (2009) | The ICO found that the FSA had been wrong to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held certain information. The complainant had requested information about any concerns the FSA had regarding the management of the Leeds City Credit Union. The FSA cited sections 31(3), 40(5) and 43(3) of FOIA and stated that the public interest test favoured maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether it held any such information. The ICO disagreed and if the information was held, the FSA was required to disclose it to the complainant or to issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17(1) of FOIA. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 10 June 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-386-2934) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department of Health (DoH) (FS50088736) (2009) | The ICO held that the bulk of a contract between the DoH and one of its service providers had to be disclosed following a request under FOIA. The ICO found that none of the exemptions applied and required a redacted version of the contract to be disclosed by the DoH. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Mid Suffolk District Council (Council) (FS50131138) (2008) | The ICO ordered the Council to disclose a copy of a 2004 tendering document for works done by a contractor. The Council had previously offered to provide a redacted copy, but had refused to provide a complete copy on the ground that it contained financial information which was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA. The ICO held that the Council had failed to show that prejudice would be likely to occur to its or the contractor's commercial interests, and rejected arguments that disclosure would affect the tendering process or undermine the Council's ability to achieve best value for money. This ruling provides some useful guidance for councils when they are submitting arguments on behalf of a contractor. | ICO orders council to disclose financial details of tender (www.practicallaw.com/4-382-4196) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) (FS50146033) (2008) | The complainant requested the full details of 22 non-safety recalls which were recorded on the VOSA's database in 2006. The VOSA withheld the information by virtue of the exemptions contained in sections 41 and 43(2) of FOIA. The ICO found that neither of the exemptions were engaged and ordered the VOSA to disclose the requested information. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Financial Services Authority (FSA) (FS50123488) (2008) | The complainant made two requests for information to the FSA for information relating to a managing agency, his syndicate and Lloyd's. The FSA refused to disclose some of the information requested claiming that section 43 applied. The ICO investigated and found that the exemption in section 43 was not engaged. | Freedom of information: FSA issued with decision notice (www.practicallaw.com/7-382-0088) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (Council) (FS50155391) (2008) | The ICO ruled that the Council had to disclose documents showing the commission payments made by investment managers to brokers on behalf of its employees' pension fund. The payments were directly deducted from the pension fund. The Council refused to disclose the information, relying on the exemptions contained in section 41 and section 43 of FOIA. The ICO ruled that the exemption in section 43 applied, but that the public interest in disclosing the information overrode the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The names of the brokers concerned and the market areas named in some of the documents were exempt from disclosure because their release could prejudice commercial interests. The ICO made similar rulings against a total of 32 local authorities. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the National Gallery (Gallery) (FS50107458) (2007) | The complainant requested correspondence between the owner of the painting and the Gallery relating to a specific painting. The Gallery disclosed some information relating to correspondence between the Gallery and Heritage Lottery fund but withheld the remainder of the information under section 43 of FOIA. The ICO investigated the application of section 43 and found that the exemption was engaged and thatthe public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (FS50083103) (2006) | The ICO dismissed the DWP's arguments that the commercial interests of the Home Office would be, or would be likely to be, prejudiced by the release of feasibility study on the impact, costs and benefits of the introduction of identity cards. Release of the information was likely to result in the Home Office obtaining better, rather than worse, value for public money and would not prevent the Home Office considering the various tenders it received and awarding contracts to those which offered best value for money. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Exeter City Council (Council) (FS50080412) (2006) | The ICO required the Council to disclose information regarding the terms of an agreement which it was negotiating with another public authority in relation to the disposal of a piece of local council land. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
AG certificate | Attorney General's certificate and statement of reasons, 16 October 2012 | The Attorney General has issued a certificate under section 53 of the FOIA preventing the disclosure of advocacy correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers dating from 2004 and 2005. This follows a ruling by the UT that (contrary to the Information Commissioner's decision) the correspondence did not fall within the exemptions under sections 37, 40 and 41 of the FOIA. This is the first time that the ministerial veto has been exercised in relation to a decision of the UT. | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR has upheld a decision of the IC concerning the amount of information that the Serious Fraud Office must disclose under the FOIA relating to its investigation into the collapse of the Equitable Life Assurance Society. The IC found that the SFO was exempt from having to disclose any further information as it was subject to the exemptions in sections 30 and 42 of FOIA and the public interest favoured maintaining these exemptions. The FTTIR has now upheld this decision, holding that the strong public interest in maintaining a safe space to encourage the collection of information to facilitate investigations and successful prosecutions in the criminal arena outweighed the public interest in providing further transparency over the collapse. | ||
UT | The UT, overturning the Information Commissioner's decision, has held that advocacy correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers in 2004 and 2005 was disclosable under the FOIA. In broad terms its ruling was that, although there were cogent arguments for non-disclosure, the public interest benefits of disclosure of advocacy correspondence falling within the claimant journalist's requests generally outweighed the public interest benefits of non-disclosure. Consequently, there was no exemption from disclosure under sections 37(1), 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. | ||
FTTIR | The FTTIR has held that the BBC was not required to disclose information about environmental seminars that its staff attended as it fell within the "journalism, art or literature" derogation in Schedule 1 to the FOIA. The FTTIR also held that the information was not "environmental information" under the EIR. | ||
Supreme Court (information held for purposes of journalism) | Sugar v British Broadcasting Commission and another [2012] UKSC 12 | The Supreme Court has upheld a Court of Appeal decision that a report created for the BBC about its Middle East news coverage was outside the scope of the FOIA because it was held for the purposes of journalism. The majority of the Supreme Court justices held that only information held exclusively for non-journalistic purposes would be within the FOIA. | |
FTTIR | Efifiom Edem v Information Commissioner and FSA (EA/2011/0168) (2012) | The case was an appeal brought by Mr Edem against a decision notice issued by the IC on 29 June 2011. The appeal arose from a request for information made on 2 April 2010 by Mr Edem to the FSA under the FOIA. The IC found that the FSA had dealt with some elements of the request in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA, but that it had breached the FOIA by failing to inform the complainant that it held some of the requested information within the 20 working day time limit. The FTTIR concluded that the IC's findings had been correct and that this was an "unnecessary appeal", for which both Mr Edem and the FSA must take responsibility. It therefore dismissed the appeal. Note: The UT has set aside this decision. | Appeal decision: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) sets aside First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) decision (www.practicallaw.com/1-523-9699) |
ICO | The Complainant v Outwood Grange Academies Trust (FS50378254) (2011) | On 29 November 2011, the IC published a decision notice setting out its view on when an Academy proprietor will hold information that is subject to FOIA. The IC states that the application of FOIA to a request will be a matter of fact, taking account of the nature of the request and the information as well as the purpose for which the information is held. | |
Court of Appeal (information held for purposes of journalism) | The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision that a report created for the BBC about its Middle East news coverage was outside the scope of FOIA because it was held for the purposes of journalism and therefore fell within the scope of the derogation in Schedule 1. The Court of Appeal said that the IT had erred in applying a "dominant purpose" test to assessing whether the report was held for the purposes of journalism, ruling that once it was established that the information sought was held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, it was effectively exempt from production under FOIA, even if it was also held by the BBC for other purposes. | ||
IT (Section 1 - whether information is held) | M L Johnson v the Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (EA/2006/0085) (2007) | The IT clarified the circumstances in which a public authority can reject a request for information because it does not hold the relevant data in the form in which it is requested. The IT said that if the request required raw data to be manipulated, it could be refused on the basis that the data was not "held" within the terms of section 1(1) of FOIA, but only if the necessary manipulation would require an exercise of skill and judgment. In the present case, an unskilled person could inspect the court records in order to extract and collate the relevant information, so the MoJ could not legitimately deny the request on the ground that it did not hold the information. | |
FTTIR (Sections 1 and 16 - presentation of redacted material) | Gradwick (G) v the Information Commissioner and the Cabinet Office (CO) (EA/2010/0030) (2009) | G had requested information from the CO's Manual of Security. The CO decided to disclose some, but not all, of the material requested and collated all of the disclosable material into a single document, rather than blanking out the necessary sections. The case concerned whether sections 23 and 24 of FOIA applied; however, the FTTIR commented on the way that the CO had chosen to present the information to G. The FTTIR stated that a failure to present the requested information in a clear and helpful way could result in the public body breaching its duties under sections 1 and 16 of FOIA. | |
IT (Section 1 - whether information is held) | Paul Harper v the Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0001) (2005) | The IT agreed with the ICO's decision, finding that the Royal Mail did not hold the information at the time when it received Mr Harper's request, and did not therefore have to provide it. The IT recommended, however, that the Royal Mail put in place a data retention policy that would ensure parity of treatment for all information. In other words, the availability of data should not depend on the point in the data deletion cycle at which a request happened to be made. All information should be kept for the same period of time, so that FOIA information requests would be treated consistently. | |
IT (Section 1 - whether information is held) | Edward Anthony Barber v the Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0004) (2005) | The IT allowed an appeal and found that the ICO had erred in its findings when deciding that because a request was "framed in general and subjective terms" the Inland Revenue did not hold any relevant information. | Information Tribunal publishes its first decision (www.practicallaw.com/1-201-6131) |
ICO (Section 1 - identifying relevant information) | The Complainant v the Department of Education (FS50422276) (2012) | The IC issued his decision that information sent by the Secretary of State for Education from a private e-mail account amounted to departmental business and was not party political information. Therefore, the requested information was held for the purposes of the FOIA and the Department for Education (DfE) was in breach of section 1(1)(b) by failing to disclose it. | |
ICO (Section 1 - identifying relevant information) | The Complainant v the Financial Services Authority (FSA) (FS50129430) (2009) | The ICO concluded that the FSA failed to identify all relevant information falling within the complainant's request and therefore failed to provide adequate written notice about whether this information was held, in breach of sections 10(1) and 1(1) of FOIA. | ICO finds FSA has breached the FOIA (www.practicallaw.com/0-501-0305) |
FTT (Section 3 - information held by another party) | The FTT dismissed the appellant's request to the Council for information on the operations maintenance manual relating to a private finance initiative. The FTT held that the information was not held by the authority for the purposes of section 3 of the FOIA. | ||
ICO (Section 3 - information held by another party) | The Complainant v the Leeds City Council (Council) (FS50118044) (2007) | The ICO issued a decision notice requiring the Council to release residents' responses to a public consultation questionnaire which were held on the Council's behalf by a market research company. The ICO rejected the Council's argument that it did not hold copies of the completed questionnaires as it had only commissioned the company to produce a final report based on the survey's results. For the purposes of FOIA (section 3(2)(b)), information is held by a public authority if it is held by another person or organisation on behalf of the authority. | |
FTTIR (Section 11(4) - public bodies right to extract information or to provide it in a format different to that in which it was requested) | The FTTIR ruled that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) must disclose copies of the actual receipts submitted by MPs claiming expenses. IPSA was not permitted to simply disclose information extracted from the receipts in reliance on section 11(4) of the FOIA. | ||
IT (Section 16 - advice and assistance) | Dr C Lamb v the Information Commissioner (EA 2006/0046) (2006) | The IT overturned a decision of the ICO and concluded that, where a request for information was unclear, the Cabinet Office was under a duty to ask the complainant to clarify his request in order to identify the information. This decision confirms that a public authority is under a positive duty to assist a person seeking information and cannot avoid disclosure on account of a lack of clarity in a request. | Information Tribunal imposes duty to seek clarification of request (www.practicallaw.com/1-206-2156) |
ICO (Section 21 - information reasonably accessible) | The Complainant v the Staffordshire County Council (Council) (FS50175530) (2009) | The complainant requested a hard copy of a photograph he had inspected at Cannock Library from the Council. The ICO accepted the Council's assertion that it was not obliged to provide a copy of the photograph under section 1(1)(b) of FOIA as it was reasonably accessible to the complainant by inspection at Cannock Library under its publication scheme and therefore exempt under section 21 of FOIA. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 25 March 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/8-385-4902) |
ICO (Section 22 - information intended for future publication) | The Complainant v the Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (Council) (FS50275058) (2010) | The complainant requested a report prepared by the Council in relation to the "reorganisation/structure of the West Glamorgan Joint Child Care Legal Service". The Council stated that the report was in draft and intended for later publication and therefore exempt under section 22 of FOIA. The ICO found that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence to support its view that section 22 was engaged and accordingly ordered disclosure. | |
UT (late reliance on an exemption) | DEFRA v Information Commissioner and another [2011] UKUT 39 (AAC) | The UT held that public authorities which initially relied on particular exemptions or exceptions under FOIA or the EIR may later rely on additional or different exemptions or exceptions, without the permission of the IC or the FTTIR. | |
FTTIR (late reliance on an exemption) | The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0006) (2010) | In agreeing to consider the exemption in section 24 of FOIA but refusing to consider the exemption in section 23, the FTTIR held there must be a reasonable justification to allow late reliance on an exemption. The IT considered that giving a blanket right to authorities to rely on exemptions first raised at the IT stage could risk making the appeal stage unfair and uncertain for the requester and could also lead to public authorities taking a more cavalier approach to their obligations under FOIA. NOTE: the Upper Tribunal has now held that public authorities are entitled to rely on new exemptions for the first time before the tribunal (see above). | |
IT (Section 30 - information held for investigation purposes) | The IT upheld a decision of the ICO and concluded that information provided by a police informant on an expressly confidential basis was covered by the exemptions in FOIA relating to personal information and information held by a public authority for investigative purposes. | ||
ICO (Section 30 - information held for investigation purposes) | The Complainant v the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (CMPS) (FS50153447) (2009) | The ICO found that the CMPS had been correct to apply section 30(1)(a)(i) of FOIA to the whole of a report, but were wrong to hold that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption in respect of the whole report. This decision notice makes it clear that even if a part of a document is exempt from disclosure under FOIA, it does not mean that the document as a whole will be exempt. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 10 June 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-386-2934) |
ICO (Section 30 - information held for investigation purposes and Section 31 - prevention and detection of crime) | The Complainant v the Royal Mail (FS50118873) (2007) | The ICO ruled that under FOIA, the Royal Mail must disclose statistics on the number of thefts from private vehicles being used to deliver mail. The ICO rejected arguments that the information was exempt from disclosure because it related to investigations and proceedings by the Royal Mail (section 30(1)(b)), or because disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime (section 31(1)(a)). | ICO orders Royal Mail to release mail-theft statistics (www.practicallaw.com/4-376-0585) |
FTTIR (Section 31 - prevention and detection of crime) | Voyias v the Information Commissioner and another (EA/2011/0007) (2011) | The FTTIR agreed with the IC finding that the list was exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA. However, it overruled the IC's decision that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the list. The FTTIR considered that the positive effect of disclosure (which included an increase in transparency and the potential to bring empty homes back into use) outweighed the increased risk of squatting and the associated crime that may accompany it. Note: This decision was successfully appealed on 22 January 2013. | List of empty residential properties must be disclosed (FTTIR) (www.practicallaw.com/3-508-0976) |
IT (Section 31 - prevention and detection of crime) | Balwinder Bangar v the Information Commissioner and Transport for London (TfL) (EA/2009/0061) (2009) | The IT overturned a decision by the ICO ruling that TfL internal guidance on how it considers appeals against congestion charge penalty notices must be disclosed. The IT held that the necessary prejudice or risk of prejudice required under section 31 of FOIA did not exist. In fact, disclosure of the guidance could assist TfL by making it clear that certain representations to evade payment would clearly fail. Section 31 did not apply to the guidance. | |
ICO (Section 31 - prevention and detection of crime) | The Complainant v the Home Office (FS50131117) (2009) | The ICO found that the Home Office had incorrectly applied section 31 of FOIA to a request for information for information concerning the evaluation and recommendations for improvement following a poor performance assessment of the Nottingham and West Yorkshire police forces conducted by the Policing Standards Unit. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 28 October 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/1-500-5803) |
ICO (Section 31 - prevention and detection of crime) | The Complainant v the BBC (FS50154106) (2008) | The complainant requested information from the BBC regarding the number of TV detection devices, how often they are deployed and their technical specification. The BBC refused to disclose the information under sections 31(1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) of FOIA. The ICO investigated and found that the information was exempt under sections 31(1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the information. | |
Court of Appeal (information held for purposes of journalism) | The Court of Appeal considered the relationship between the exemption from disclosing information under section 32 of the FOIA for information relating to inquiries, and Article 10 of the ECHR. A journalist appealed against information he requested in relation to an inquiry being covered by the section 32 exemption. The applicant argued that this blanket exemption breached his Article 10 rights, and that the exemption should be limited under section 3 Human Rights Act 1998. The CoA held it was bound by the Supreme Court's decision in Sugar v BBC [2012] UKSC 12 to find that the applicant's Article 10 rights were not breached. | ||
FTTIR (Section 32 - inquiry) | The FTTIR has held that a certificate of conviction was covered by the section 32 of the FOIA absolute exemption, as it was a document created for the purposes of court proceedings and, therefore, it was the decision of individual courts whether to disclose. | ||
FTTIR (Section 32 - inquiry) | Kennedy v IC and another [2011] UKFTT EA_2008_0083 (GRC) (18 November 2011) | On 18 November 2011, the FTTIR determined whether the conventional construction of section 32(2) of the FOIA (disclosure of inquiry records) infringed the appellant's right to freedom of expression and contravened Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). | |
Court of Appeal (Section 32 - inquiry) | Kennedy v the Information Commissioner and another (2011) EWCA Civ 367 | The appellant renewed an application to appeal the High Court ruling that information he had requested (following the Charity Commission's inquiries under the Charities Act 1993 into the Mariam Appeal founded by George Galloway) was exempt from disclosure under section 32 of the FOIA. The issue for the Court of Appeal (CA) was whether the exemption under section 32(2) subsisted only for the duration of the inquiry or continued after the inquiry had concluded, although under section 63 of FOIA the exemption would lapse after 30 years. The CA directed that the appeal be stayed so the human rights issue could be referred to the FTTIR for determination. | |
High Court (Section 32 - inquiry) | The High Court confirmed the IT's decision and held that the CC could rely on the exemption from disclosure in section 32(2) of FOIA. The request for information to the CC came from a journalist, following the CC's inquiries under the Charities Act 1993 into the Mariam Appeal. The High Court held that documents which came into the custody of the CC and which were later held solely for the purpose of its inquiry fell within the section 32(2) exemption. It also confirmed that the definition of documents in section 32 included information recorded on an electronic medium. | ||
ICO (Section 32 - inquiry) | The Complainant v the Hastings Borough Council (Council) (FS50148575) (2008) | The ICO found that the Council was wrong to apply the exemption contained in section 32(1)(b) of FOIA to the whole of a request for various details of all civil cases to which the Council was a party. This exemption required that the information was to be held by a public authority only by virtue of being contained in any document served on, or by, a public authority for the purposes of court proceedings. | Borough councils on wrong side of ICO decisions (www.practicallaw.com/7-384-7016) |
IT (Section 33 - audit of public authorities' accounts) | The IT upheld the ICO's decision ordering the disclosure under FOIA of two Gateway reports by the OGC on the progress of the government's identity-card scheme, with the redaction of the names of certain participants. The IT held that the exemptions in both section 33 and section 35 were engaged. However, it ruled that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. | ||
Court of Appeal (Section 44 - disclosure prohibited by other legislation) | The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA, in relation to a request for information on licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, because section 24 of the 1986 Act applied. | ||
FTTIR (Section 44 - disclosure prohibited by other legislation) | Thomas v Information Commissioner and another (EA/2010/0145) (2011) | The FTTIR found that "fieldwork records" held by the Auditor General for Wales on an investigation it carried out into corporate governance at Isle of Anglesey County Council should not be disclosed, as this was prohibited under section 54 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004. | |
IT (Section 44 - disclosure prohibited by other legislation) | In a case concerning the FSA, the IT upheld a decision of the ICO and concluded that confidential information provided to the FSA was exempt from disclosure under FOIA by virtue of the prohibition on its disclosure contained in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. | ||
ICO (Section 44 - disclosure prohibited by other legislation) | The Complainant v the Financial Services Authority (FSA) (FS50286155) (2010) | A complaint was made from an individual that the FSA had withheld certain information about the management of Leeds City Credit Union. The ICO found that the section 44 exemption (which the FSA argued applied to all of the requested information) applied to only some of the information withheld. | ICO finds FSA in breach of Freedom of Information Act 2000 (www.practicallaw.com/0-503-2897) |
ICO (Section 44 - disclosure prohibited by other legislation) | The Complainant v the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (FS50071795) (2006) | The ICO held the DTI was not obliged to disclose those parts of the requested information which were protected by legal professional privilege. The DTI was, however, required to disclose the remainder of the requested information except to the extent that it was information which was obtained directly in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 447 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA), or where its disclosure would necessarily reveal information which was obtained directly in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 447 of the CA. | |
UT (limitation period for bringing an appeal) | X v the Information Commissioner and another UKUT 423 (AAC) (2010) | The UT dismissed Mr X's applications for permission to appeal the FTTIR's decision of 23 July 2010, refusing to extend time to admit his late appeal and to apply for judicial review of the same decision. | |
UT | The UT rejected an appeal from the ICO against a FTTIR ruling allowing a complainant to submit an appeal 46 days late against a decision notice issued by the ICO. | ||
UT (Section 50 - application for decision by Commissioner) | The UT allowed the IC's appeal of the FTTIR's decision of 23 March 2010 and held that the requirement in section 50(4) of the FOIA that a decision notice should specify the steps a public authority must take does not amount to a mandatory obligation on the IC to require steps to be taken. The UT also held that the mandatory element of section 50(4) of FOIA is that, if the IC considers that a public authority ought to take steps to comply with the statutory requirements of sections 1(1), 11 or 17, then these steps, and the period of time within which they must be undertaken, must be specified in the decision notice. The FTTIR was wrong to decide that the IC had no discretion. | ||
UT (appealing a decision notice in your favour) | The UT granted permission to appeal against a decision of the IT refusing to hear an appeal against a decision notice issued by the ICO upholding the appellant's complaint against the Council. The UT did so on the basis that the well-established principle that a successful party should not be permitted to bring an appeal related to judicial decisions by courts and tribunals, did not necessarily apply to decisions by administrative first-instance decision-makers or independent office holders. | ||
FTTIR | Paul Charman v Information Commissioner [2012] UKFTT 2011_0210 | The FTTIR has held that there is no right of appeal to the tribunal for a complainant in respect of action taken by the Information Commissioner under section 54 of FOIA against a public authority for failing to comply with a decision notice. The right to appeal in section 57 FOIA only relates to a "decision notice" served by the IC. The FTTIR held that this refers only to a decision notice served by the IC under section 50 on the substantive issue of whether the public authority had complied with the requirements of parts one and two of FOIA (or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004) when dealing with a request for information. Where a complainant is unhappy with any enforcement action taken by the IC under section 54, the FTTIR concluded that the appropriate remedy is an application for judicial review, or possibly a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. | |
IT (quality of information provided) | Edward Simmons v the Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0003) (2005) | The IT dismissed an appeal by an individual alleging that the Inland Revenue failed to comply with a request for information under FOIA. The IT found that the individual's actual complaint concerned the quality of the information supplied to him. However, this was not a matter which the IT had jurisdiction to consider. The IT explained that its role was to consider how public authorities provide access to information, but not to consider how public authorities exercise their specific powers. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
UT | Kirklees Council v Information Commissioner and another [2011] UKUT 104 AAC (2011) | The UT held that the EIR require local authorities to provide access to the information necessary to answer the queries on the CON 29R form free of charge. | |
ICO |
| The ICO reinforced its view that property search information is environmental and therefore must be made available for inspection free of charge under the EIR regulation 5(1). Therefore, by attempting to charge for the inspection of the information, the Council had breached regulation 8(2)(b) of the EIR. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Stoke City Council (Council) (FER0240911) (2009) | The complainant requested to inspect the building control and traffic schemes information within 200 metres of a named address. The Council refused because the information was available through the completion of a standard search form (CON29) and on payment of a fee based on the property search regulations, regulation 6(1)(b) removed the need to comply with regulation 5(1). The ICO investigated and found that the request was to inspect environmental information but that the Council could not use regulation 6(1)(b) to refuse. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Council) (FER0236058) (2009) | The complainant made a request to inspect the building control and traffic schemes information within 200 metres of a named address. The Council agreed to provide the information requested but only on the provision of a fee based on the property search regulations, using regulation 8(1). The ICO investigated and found that the request is a request to inspect environmental information but that the Council cannot charge for the information by virtue of regulation 8(2)(b). |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
UT | Information Commissioner v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), Craven v Information Commissioner [2012] UKUT 442 (AAC) and Ainslie v Information Commissioner [2012] UKUT 441 (AAC) | The UT ruled on the correct test for whether information requests are vexatious (section 14, FOIA) or manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b), EIR). The UT stated that:
The rulings were in three separate cases that were heard by the same judge within a short time of each other. They are significant because the FOIA does not give guidance on the meaning of these terms and there has previously been no binding authority from appellate courts or tribunals. | |
IT | Little v the Information Commissioner UKIT 2010/0072 (EA/2010/0072) (2010) | The IT considered an appeal against a decision notice of the ICO upholding a refusal by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) to provide the appellant with information under the EIR. The information requested related to the disposal of land owned by the Forestry Commission Wales for the purpose of wind farm development. In refusing the request for information, the WAG had relied on the exemption under regulation 12(4). The IT decided that the appellant's request for information was manifestly unreasonable. | EIR: what is a manifestly unreasonable request? (www.practicallaw.com/8-504-3873) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Environment Agency (FER0253026) (2010) | The ICO found that the exemption from disclosure for requests that are manifestly unreasonable in regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR did not apply to information held by the Environment Agency in respect of its monitoring of a river following a pollution incident. | ICO considers when a request will be manifestly unreasonable (www.practicallaw.com/9-503-7386) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Walsall Council (Council) (FER0279668) (2010) | The ICO published a decision notice finding that the Council had appropriately withheld information requested in relation to inspection of its building control registers, but only on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b), which the Council had not claimed. The Council had had incorrectly applied several other exceptions and breached various aspects of the EIR, including the obligation to provide advice and assistance. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Queen's University Belfast (QUB) (FS5016382) (2010) | The complainant requested electronic data relating to tree ring research. The QUB confirmed it held the information but refused to provide it citing section 12 of FOIA. The QUB subsequently cited the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(b), 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR to refuse the information. The ICO held that none of the exceptions were engaged and the withheld information should therefore be disclosed. | EIR: When is scientific information subject to disclosure? (www.practicallaw.com/7-502-0914) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) (number of decisions of similar nature) (FS50190235, FS50176016 and FS50187763) (2009) | The complainants in each case requested information from the FCS. The FCS refused to disclose the information, or to confirm if the information requested was held citing sections 14(1) and 12(1) of FOIA. The ICO investigated and found that sections 14(1) and 12(1) of FOIA were not engaged. However it was held that some of the information should have been considered under the EIR. The FCS applied regulation 12(4)(b) and the ICO concluded that 12(4)(b) was not engaged. The ICO required that the FCS confirm or deny to the complainant if the information requested was held and if held disclose the information to the complainant or issue the complainant with a valid refusal notice under section 17(1) of FOIA or regulation 14 of the EIR. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 April 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-8237) |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council v Information Commissioner [2012] UKFTT 0117 (GRC) | The FTTIR ruled that draft reports and background papers prepared by political assistants and related council correspondence relating to a council's procurement exercise were not disclosable under the EIR. The information requested was held to be subject to the incomplete information (regulation 12(4)(d)) and internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) exceptions and the public interest was in favour of withholding disclosure. This was to prevent council officers and political assistants being subjected to excessive public scrutiny before the final decision on the procurement exercise and whether to proceed with the proposed procurement was taken. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Chichester District Council (Council) (FER0256705) (2010) | The complainant requested information about a planning application made on behalf of the Council. The ICO held that regulation 12(4)(d) did not apply to the information. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Queen's University Belfast (QUB) (FS5016382) (2010) | The complainant requested electronic data relating to tree ring research. The QUB confirmed it held the information but refused to provide it citing section 12 of FOIA. The QUB subsequently cited the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(b), 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR to refuse the information. The ICO held that none of the exceptions were engaged and the withheld information should therefore be disclosed. | EIR: When is scientific information subject to disclosure? (www.practicallaw.com/7-502-0914) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) (FER0178729) (2008) | The complainant requested a copy of a draft report produced by the NDA which focused on storage methods for radioactive waste (the final version of the report had already been placed in the public domain). The NDA argued that the draft version was exempt by virtue of the exceptions contained at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR and that for both exceptions the public interest favoured withholding the information. The ICO held that the draft report did not fall within the scope of 12(4)(d). However, it was decided that the draft report did fall within the scope of 12(4)(e) and it was satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council v Information Commissioner [2012] UKFTT 0117 (GRC) | The FTTIR ruled that draft reports and background papers prepared by political assistants and related council correspondence relating to a council's procurement exercise were not disclosable under the EIR. The information requested was held to be subject to the incomplete information (regulation 12(4)(d)) and internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) exceptions and the public interest was in favour of withholding disclosure. This was to prevent council officers and political assistants being subjected to excessive public scrutiny before the final decision on the procurement exercise and whether to proceed with the proposed procurement was taken. | |
High Court | Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) v Friends of the Earth (2008) EWHC 638 (Admin) | The High Court dismissed an appeal against the IT's decision that the ECGD should disclose the submissions it received from other government departments in 2003 concerning its funding of the Sakahalin project. The High Court confirmed the IT's decision and held that, although an exception for the government's internal communications applied under regulation 12(4)(e), the documents should be disclosed under the "public interest test". | |
FTTIR | Chichester District Council v Information Commissioner EA/2010/0153 (2011) | The FTTIR found Chichester District Council must disclose details of a valuation of land owned by the council and for which the council made a planning application. The FTTIR supported the ICO's findings that, while the valuation was an internal communication covered by the exception to disclosure in regulation 12(4)(e), the public interest required the valuation to be disclosed. | |
IT | Cabinet Office (CO) v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0027) (2009) | The IT partly upheld an appeal against a decision notice issued by the ICO. The decision notice required the CO to disclose briefing notes for the Cabinet and the Prime Minister on the government's energy review. The ICO acknowledged that the information was covered by the exemption in regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, and also the importance of allowing a "safe space" for ministers to discuss policy options. The IT held that due to the short period of time that had elapsed since the decision on nuclear power had been made, the principle of collective responsibility of the Cabinet and the need for those advising ministers to have the confidence to express their views without fear of them being disclosed, the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption in regulation 12(4)(e). | |
ICO | The Complainant v Natural England (FER0261274) (2010) | The ICO found that Natural England correctly applied the exception under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to a request for information about a briefing paper on an area of land known as "The Saltings" in East Sussex. The ICO held the paper was an internal Natural England document aimed at officers and directors and, therefore, engaged the 12(4)(e) exception. The ICO further held that although there was significant public interest in determining whether the site was an SSSI, the issues surrounding the current designation of the site were still being debated between the landowner and Natural England, and information concerning Natural England's "internal thought processes" should not be disclosed while these negotiations continued. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Chichester District Council (Council) (FER0256705) (2010) | The complainant requested information about a planning application made on behalf of the Council. The ICO held that regulation 12(4)(e) applied to the majority of the information. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (FER0272686) (2009) | The complainant requested information relating to a meeting that took place between Defra and the Mayor of London. After a delay in providing a response Defra refused to disclose the information citing regulation 12(4)(e). The ICO held that regulation 12(4)(e) was not engaged as the communications were not internal. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the South Gloucestershire Council (Council) (FER0127659) (2009) | The complainant, a developer, asked to be provided with the Development Appraisal used by the Council. The Council applied the exceptions under regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) to the majority of the information. The ICO investigated and was not satisfied that either exception was engaged. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 April 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-8237) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) (FER0178729) (2008) | The complainant requested a copy of a draft report produced by the NDA which focused on storage methods for radioactive waste (the final version of the report had already been placed in the public domain). The NDA argued that the draft version was exempt by virtue of the exceptions contained at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR and that for both exceptions the public interest favoured withholding this information. The ICO held that the draft report did not fall within the scope of 12(4)(d). However, it was decided that the draft report did fall within the scope of 12(4)(e) and it was satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department for Transport (DfT) (FER0088851) (2008) | The complainant requested information held by the DfT in relation to the proposal for the development of a second runway at Stansted Airport. It sought to rely on regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The ICO decided that the DfT correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the information it argued was covered by this exception. However, it was decided that it incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the remaining information and ordered that it be disclosed to the complainant. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | Skinner v Information Commissioner and another (Case no EA/2010/0184) (2011) | The FTTIR rejected an appeal from a complainant seeking disclosure of legal advice obtained by North Somerset Council (council) concerning an alleged breach of planning control in a neighbouring property. | |
IT | Stephen West v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0120) (2010) | The IT upheld a decision of the ICO finding that the exemption in regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR applied to a request for the London Borough of Bexley to disclose legal advice obtained about a disputed stock transfer. The IT agreed that the relevant advice was subject to litigation privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure. | IT questions whether EIR exempts legal advice privilege (www.practicallaw.com/1-503-7366) |
IT | The IT held that a report prepared by the Council's monitoring officer was not legally privileged, and therefore not exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. | ||
IT | This case concerned a decision by the ICO, in respect of a request by MTUA, to Halton Borough Council, for information relating to tolls at one actual, and one proposed, bridge over the River Mersey. The case provided a list of principles for applying the public interest test to public authorities and those seeking disclosure of environmental information of the presumption in favour of disclosure, and when that presumption can be overturned. | ||
IT | Woodford v the Information Commissioner (EA/2009/0098) (2009) | The IT dismissed an appeal relating to a request for disclosure of correspondence between St Albans City and District Council and its in-house lawyers. The IT held that the information was protected by legal professional privilege and this did extend to advice given in-house. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Department for Transport (DfT) (FER0088851) (2008) | The complainant requested information held by the DfT in relation to the proposal for the development of a second runway at Stansted Airport. It sought to rely on regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The ICO decided that the DfT correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the information it argued was covered by this exception. However, it was decided that it incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the remaining information and ordered that it be disclosed to the complainant. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Halton Borough Council (Council) (FER0138940) (2008) | The complainant made a request for information to the Council regarding its dealings with the Department for Transport (DfT) about road tolling and a new bridge. The Council disclosed or agreed to disclose much of the information requested, however the Council remained of the view that five of the documents relevant to the request were exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The ICO's decision was that the information was not exempt as it was communications with the DfT, not the Council's legal advisers. | Borough councils on wrong side of ICO decisions (www.practicallaw.com/7-384-7016) |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
Court of Appeal | Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) (2010) EWCA Civ 1214 | The Court of Appeal ruled that documents relating to a company's financial model and profit margin should not be disclosed under section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (ACA) and that commercial confidential information could be considered as a possession under Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
ICO | The Complainant v Advantage West Midlands Regional Development Agency | The ICO held that information relating the to the nature and scale of contamination of a site (which was formerly a copper refinery) had to be disclosed following a request under FOIA. The ICO stated that the information requested was environmental information as defined in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391) (EIR) and asked AWM to reconsider the request under the EIR. AWM responded, withholding the reports relying principally on regulation 12(5)(e). The ICO accepted that the information contained in the reports was commercial and industrial in nature, however, he disagreed that disclosure of them would amount to breach of copyright held by third parties. The ICO also disagreed with AWM's assertion that disclosure of the information could have an adverse effect on those involved in the sale of the site, holding that a large amount of information about the site and its scale of contamination was already in the public domain. | ICO: information on contaminated land should be disclosed (www.practicallaw.com/2-510-5190) |
Court of Appeal | Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) (2010) EWCA Civ 1214 | The Court of Appeal ruled that documents relating to a company's financial model and profit margin should not be disclosed under section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (ACA) and that commercial confidential information could be considered as a possession under Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. | |
FTTIR | The FTTIR dismissed the Council's appeal against the ICO's decision that a viability report prepared as part of a planning application, and containing details on costs, revenues, values and finances of a development in the vicinity of Hampton Court, should be disclosed. Although the Council had pleaded commercial confidentiality and sought to rely on the exceptions in regulation 12(5)(e) and (f) of the EIR, the ICO found that these exceptions were not engaged. | Tribunal orders Council to disclose viability report (www.practicallaw.com/1-504-4343) | |
FTTIR | Staffordshire County Council v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0015) (2010) | The FTTIR considered an appeal by the Council against a decision by the ICO holding that information relating to the sales and reserve figures it had received from quarry operators should be disclosed under regulations 12(5)(e) and (f) of the EIR. The FTTIR overturned the ICO's decision holding that the principles in Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1214 (see above) were relevant and the exception to the presumption in favour of disclosure did apply. Therefore the information requested from the Council about a particular quarry operator quarrying silica sand should not be disclosed. | |
FTTIR | Bristol City Council (Council) v the Information Commissioner and another (EA/2010/0012) (2010) | The FTTIR found that the ICO had not been correct to conclude that a viability report and associated cost estimate submitted to the Council by a developer did not fall within the exemption for confidential information set out in regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. However, the FTTIR held that as a result of regulation 12(2), the EIR still required that the documents be disclosed because it was in the public interest to do so. | |
IT | This case concerned a decision by the ICO, in respect of a request by MTUA, to Halton Borough Council, for information relating to tolls at one actual, and one proposed, bridge over the River Mersey. The case provided a list of principles for applying the public interest test to public authorities and those seeking disclosure of environmental information of the presumption in favour of disclosure, and when that presumption can be overturned. | ||
IT | The Council appealed the ICO's decision that information contained in a number of consultants' appraisals should be disclosed to Bovis. The IT held that the Council was not entitled to treat the appraisals prepared by the consultants as internal communications but allowed the Council's appeal on the basis that the information in the appraisals was confidential, commercial information within regulation 12(5)(e). The public interest balance weighed in favour of maintaining the exception and the Council had been lawfully entitled to withhold the requested information. | ||
ICO | The Complainant v the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (FS50297633) (2010) | The ICO ordered the disclosure of information contained in a conditional development agreement between the Council and a developer that set out the basis on which a development scheme must be delivered. The Council disclosed a redacted version of the agreement with information on certain financial aspects removed on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e). The ICO held that all of the remaining redacted information, including that relating to the financial implications of the proposed development not proceeding did not protect a legitimate economic interest and therefore had to be disclosed. | ICO orders disclosure of confidential information (www.practicallaw.com/8-504-3284) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Gwynedd County Council (FER0260086) (2010) | The ICO ordered the disclosure of a developer's detailed financial appraisal for a redevelopment project and details of the developer's formal offer for the relevant site with a high level breakdown of land values and unique costs associated with the development. The Council refused a request for the information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e). The ICO concluded that at the time of the request, the agreement had been signed and the development constructed, maintaining the confidentiality no longer served to protect a legitimate economic interest and that the information should be disclosed. | ICO orders disclosure of confidential information (www.practicallaw.com/8-504-3284) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Queen's University Belfast (QUB) (FS5016382) (2010) | The complainant requested electronic data relating to tree ring research. The QUB confirmed it held the information but refused to provide it citing section 12 of FOIA. The QUB subsequently cited the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(b), 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR to refuse the information. The ICO held that none of the exceptions were engaged and the withheld information should therefore be disclosed. | EIR: When is scientific information subject to disclosure? (www.practicallaw.com/7-502-0914) |
ICO | The Complainant v the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (Council) (FS50255081) (2010) | The complainant requested the names and addresses of the Council's pre-paid waste sack clients under the EIR. The ICO held that the 12(5)(e) exception was engaged apart from the first three digits of the clients' postcodes, which had to be disclosed. The public interest test favoured the remaining information being withheld. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Nottinghamshire County Council (Council) (FER0206320) (2010) | The ICO held that the public interest required the Council to disclose parts of a waste PFI contract. The ICO agreed that the exemption relating to confidential information contained in regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR did apply to the request, but found that the public interest in maintaining this exemption was outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 17 July 2010 (www.practicallaw.com/6-502-7845) |
ICO | The Complainant v the Chichester District Council (Council) (FER0256705) (2010) | The complainant requested information about a planning application made on behalf of the Council. The Council provided some information, stated that other information was not held, and withheld other information using section 43 of FOIA. The ICO stated that the information should have been considered under the EIR and the Council refused the request under regulation 12(5)(e). The ICO held that regulation 12(5)(e) did not apply but that regulation 12(4)(e) applied to the majority of the information. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the South Gloucestershire Council (Council) (FER 0127659) (2009) | The complainant, a developer, asked to be provided with the Development Appraisal used by the Council. The Council dealt with the request under the FOIA and following its internal review, dismissed the appeal. This prompted the complainant to submit a further request specifically asking for the information under the EIR. This time the Council responded under the EIR and applied the exceptions under regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) to the majority of the information. The ICO investigated and was not satisfied that either exception was engaged. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 22 April 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-8237) |
ICO | The Complainant v the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Council) (FER0066052) (2008) | The ICO ordered the Council to disclose information in a waste management contract that it had agreed with an independent contractor. The ICO accepted that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR applied but held that the public interest in disclosing certain information over-rode the public interest in maintaining the commercial confidentiality exception. | ICO orders disclosure of waste management contract (www.practicallaw.com/6-381-1701) |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | GM Freeze v Information Commissioner and another (Case no EA/2010/0112) (2011). | The FTTIR dismissed an appeal dealing with a request for disclosure of the National Grid reference of a site that had sown a trial crop of oilseed rape that had turned out to be contaminated by genetically modified seed as the information was exempt under regulation 13. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the London Borough of Hackney Council (Council) (FS50315994) (2011) | The complainant requested information about the East Marsh wind turbine survey. The Council handled the request under FOIA and disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder as personal data citing section 40(2) FOIA. The ICO held that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR. The ICO held, under regulation 13 of EIR, that the withheld information was not personal data. The ICO also found that regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) did not apply. The ICO therefore ordered the Council to disclose the information. | |
ICO | The Complainant v the Cardiff County Council (Council) (FS50199873) (2009) | The ICO found that details of the signatories to a privately-prepared petition presented to the Council were exempt from disclosure under the EIR. The ICO also found that the Council had been wrong to consider the matter under FOIA, as although the content of the petition was not environmental information in itself, it related to an environmental issue. | ICO decision notice in brief for week ending 12 May 2009 (www.practicallaw.com/5-385-9166) |
Type of decision | Parties and reference | Summary | Link to update |
FTTIR | The FTTIR has held that the BBC was not required to disclose information about environmental seminars that its staff attended as it fell within the "journalism, art or literature" derogation in Schedule 1 to the FOIA. The FTTIR also held that the information was not "environmental information" under the EIR. | ||
European Court of Justice (ECJ) | Flachglas Torgau GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany [2012] EUECJ C-204/09 | In two judgments, the ECJ has provided guidance on the extent of the exemption for authorities acting in a legislative capacity from having to provide access to environmental information under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). This decision has specific relevance to England and Wales because the exemption set out in the Aarhus Convention is mirrored by regulation 3(3) of the EIR. | |
ECJ | In two judgments, the ECJ has provided guidance on the extent of the exemption for authorities acting in a legislative capacity from having to provide access to environmental information under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). This decision has specific relevance to England and Wales because the exemption set out in the Aarhus Convention is mirrored by regulation 3(3) of the EIR. | ||
FTTIR (Regulation 2(2) - bodies covered by the EIR) | The FTTIR has held that the Duchy of Cornwall is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. | ||
UT (Regulation 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) - bodies covered by the EIR) | Smartsource Drainage and Water Reports Limited v the Information Commissioner (GI/2458/2010) (2010) | The UT upheld a decision by the ICO finding that water and sewerage companies or water only companies are not public authorities for the purposes of regulation 2(2)(c) or (d) of the EIR, and therefore the ICO was correct to rule that they had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | |
IT (Regulation 2(2) - bodies covered by the EIR) | The IT held that the Duchy of Lancaster is not a public authority for the purposes of regulation 2(2) of the EIR because it is separate from the Crown and is not a government department. | ||
IT (Regulations 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) bodies covered by the EIR) | The IT, upholding an appeal from a decision of the ICO, ruled that Network Rail does not constitute a public authority within the meaning of the EIR, and is therefore not required to respond to requests for environmental information made under the EIR. In reaching its decision, the IT adopted a narrow interpretation of the term "functions of public administration" used in the EIR. This decision, coupled with the ICO's earlier decision that Network Rail was not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA, means that Network Rail is not subject to any statutory obligation to respond to requests for information relating to its business. | Information Tribunal rules on status of Network Rail (www.practicallaw.com/8-376-2295) | |
FTTIR (Regulation 2(1) - definition of Environmental Information) | Omagh District Council v the Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0163) (2011) | The FTTIR upheld the ICO's decision that a request for the names, departments and job titles of those officers of the council who conducted an equality impact assessment on the council's policy of disposing of land for the purpose of erecting or retaining a memorial or monument was a request for environmental information under the EIR (within the meaning of regulation 2(1)(c)). | |
FTTIR | Uttlesford District Council v Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0269 & 0285), | The FTTIR upheld the council's appeal against the Information Commissioner's decisions that the council should disclose draft committee reports and e-mails between officers and members of the council on whether particular members were eligible to vote on a planning application. The Tribunal found the request for disclosure of the e-mails, which addressed questions of probity, did not fall within regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and should have been considered under the FOIA. The FTTIR was also satisfied that the draft reports passing between the council and its legal adviser fell within the scope of legal professional privilege. | |
ICO (Regulation 2(1) - definition of Environmental Information) | The Complainant v the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and Central Office of Information (COI) (FS50289581 and FS50245247) (2010) | The ICO found that the information that the complainant requested from the COI and the DECC, which focused on a Greenpeace complaint about a consultation the government had carried out on nuclear power in the UK, should not have been handled as a request under FOIA. It constituted environmental information as defined in regulation 2(1) of the EIR and should have been considered under that regime. Therefore, the public authorities were required to provide a response to the requests for information under the EIR. | |
ICO (Regulation 2(1) - definition of environmental information) | The Complainant v the Bedford Borough Council (Council) (FS50281827) (2010) | The ICO held that the Council had incorrectly considered the requests under FOIA, when the information was environmental, so the EIR was the correct regime. The decision notice highlights the need for public authorities to remember that the ICO has consistently adopted a wide interpretation of when information will be environmental for the purposes of the EIR. | ICO decision notices in brief for week ending 17 July 2010 (www.practicallaw.com/6-502-7845) |
UT (late reliance on an exemption) | DEFRA v Information Commissioner and another [2011] UKUT 39 (AAC) | The UT held that public authorities which initially relied on particular exemptions or exceptions under FOIA or the EIR may later rely on additional or different exemptions or exceptions, without the permission of the IC or the FTTIR. | |
FTTIR (Regulation 6(1)(a) - Information requested in a particular format, and Regulation 8(2) - Not charging for certain information) | Leeds City Council v Information Commissioner and others (EA/2012/0020 and 0021) | The FTTIR ruled on the types of costs that a public body may charge for providing environmental information in another format than on site inspection, when that information is requested by way of inspection, under the EIR. It ruled that regulation 8(2) of the EIR prevented public bodies from charging to allow applicants to inspect information on site. The only types of charge the EIR permit when providing information in an alternative format to inspection (where inspection was requested) are disbursements. Public bodies may not charge "for the cost of administrative tasks or administrative acts which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, time spent by staff in locating, retrieving or redacting the information requested". | |
FTTIR (Regulation 12(4)(a) - Information not held when receiving a request) | The FTTIR has found that a copy of an e-mail held on a back up server was held for the purposes of regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, even though the original copy of the e-mail had been deleted by its sender from his computer. | ||
FTTIR (Regulations 12(5)(a) - disclosure and 12(4)(e) - international relations) | The FTTIR has held that the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was not required to disclose information relating to the costs of the UK meeting its pledge to reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 42% by 2020 (from 1990 levels). | ||
ECJ (Regulations 12(5)(a) (public safety) and 12(5)(c) (IPR)) | Office of Communications (Ofcom) v the Information Commissioner (Case C-71/10) (28 July 2011) | The ECJ has ruled, on a reference from the UK Supreme Court under the directive on public access to environmental information (Directive 2003/4/EC), that a public authority may, when weighing the public interests served by disclosure against the interests served by refusal to disclose, take into account cumulatively a number of the grounds for refusal set out in the Directive. | ECJ rules on environmental information disclosure exceptions (www.practicallaw.com/4-507-1090) |
Supreme Court (Regulations 12(5)(a) (public safety) and 12(5)(c) (IPR)) | Office of Communications (Ofcom) v the Information Commissioner (2010) UKSC 3 | The UK Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) a question about the interpretation of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, which has been implemented in the UK by the EIR. The question arose from a request for information from Ofcom about mobile-phone base stations held within the Sitefinder database. The Court of Appeal reversed the decisions of the High Court and the IT that the interests served by the exemptions, provided by regulations 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(c) of the EIR, must be considered separately. The Supreme Court was divided in its view but considered that the answer lies in the interpretation of the Directive. See ECJ decision above. | Supreme Court refers EIR exceptions question to ECJ (www.practicallaw.com/4-501-3458) |
ICO (Regulation 12(5)(c) (IPR)) | The Complainant v the Queen's University Belfast (QUB) (FS5016382) (2010) | The complainant requested electronic data relating to tree ring research. The QUB confirmed it held the information but refused to provide it citing section 12 of FOIA. The QUB subsequently cited the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(b), 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR to refuse the information. The ICO held that none of the exceptions were engaged and the withheld information should therefore be disclosed. | EIR: When is scientific information subject to disclosure? (www.practicallaw.com/7-502-0914) |