UTAA Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT) – statements of reasons – The public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) and to conclude that the request dated 29 May 2010 was vexatious within the meaning of FOIA. The Decision Notice stands.
Wikely UTJ said: The common theme underpinning section 14(1), at least insofar as it applies on the basis of a past course of dealings between the public authority and a particular requester, has been identified by Judge Jacobs as being a lack of proportionality (in his refusal of permission to appeal in Wise v Information Commissioner GIA/1871/2011 . . This issue was also identified by the recent FTT in Lee v Information Commissioner and King’s College Cambridge at as a relevant consideration . . I agree with the overall conclusion that the FTT in Lee reached, namely that ‘vexatious’ connotes ‘manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure’ (at [69]).’ Judge Wikely went on to identify four questions which he suggested might help those considering whether or not a request was truly vexatious:
i. How great a burden did the request impose on the public authority and its staff?
ii. What was the requester’s motive?
iii. Did the request have value or a serious purpose?
iv. Was there any evidence of the requester harassing staff members or causing them distress?
However, the Judge also made it clear that those considerations were not intended to be exhaustive and that they should not be treated as a formulaic check-list.
Wikely UTJ
[2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), [2013] 1Info LR 360
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000 14(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Woolley v Information Commissioner FTTGRC 25-Nov-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.471138
