Author: admin

FB (Afghanistan) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 21 Oct 2020

‘ the Appellants contend that the Secretary of State’s policy for removing those without the right to enter or remain in the UK – which, for those who fall within its scope, after a relatively short notice period in which removal cannot be effected, sets a removal window within which the individual can be removed at any time without further notice – is unlawful as abrogating the right to access to justice in respect of decisions which bear upon their removal. In brief, it is submitted that the notice period is too short for those affected to instruct lawyers to make representations that leave to enter or remain should be granted, for any such representations to be considered by the Secretary of State, and then for an application to be made to a court or tribunal to challenge any negative decision; and so it is inevitable that many negative decisions affecting their right to remain and their removal (including decisions to extend the notice period or defer the removal window) are made after the notice period has ended, so that they become at risk of immediate removal without an adequate opportunity to challenge the material decision or decisions before a court or tribunal.’
References: [2020] EWCA Civ 1338
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Hickinbottom
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.655047

Nair v Lagardere Sports and Entertainment UK Ltd: QBD 6 Oct 2020

contract law – employment law – implied terms – trust and confidence – scope of term – financial wellbeing – corporate structure – bonus payments
Applicability of the ‘implied term as to trust and confidence’ (‘ITTC’) in contracts of employment, and in particular where the alleged context is a breach of that term by way of the conduct of an employer which (depending on how one looks at the facts) consisted of a failure to secure payment of bonuses due from other companies in the broad group of companies in which C was employed and over which it is argued D had sufficient de facto control, or where the conduct is a positive ‘stringing along’ and avoiding honouring the bonus payment, leading to a breakdown in trust and confidence. Among other things the question is whether the claim must fail on the basis that appellate courts have in the past rejected the notion of an implied duty on an employer to take steps to protect the financial welfare of employees. In this instance the sum involved is enormous, being a bonus of at least $25 million USD.
References: [2020] EWHC 2608 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: McCloud M
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.655147

Smith v Baker: QBD 20 Oct 2020

Claim and counterclaim for defamation and harassment relating to publications posted on twitter (in respect of the claim) and blogposts (in respect of the counterclaim).
References: [2020] EWHC 2776 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Master Sullivan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.655155

Toshiba v Commission (Agreements, Decisions And Concerted Practices): ECFI 19 Jan 2016

ECJ Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – New decision taken following annulment in part of the initial decision by the Court – Fines – Rights of the defence – Obligation to state reasons – Equal treatment – Starting amount – Extent of contribution to the infringement
References: T-404/12, [2016] EUECJ T-404/12
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559137

Commission v Bulgaria (Advocate Generals Opinion): ECJ 3 Sep 2015

ECJ Nature conservation – Directive 2009/147/EC – Conservation of wild birds -‘Kaliakra’ and ‘Belite Skali’ special protection areas – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild species – ‘Kompleks Kaliakra’ special protection area – Directive 2011/92/EU – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Temporal application of the EU rules – Deterioration of natural habitats and habitats of species and disturbance of species – Wind power – Tourism
References: C-141/14, [2015] EUECJ C-141/14 – O
Links: Bailii
Judges: Kokott AG
Statutes: Directive 2009/147/EC
Jurisdiction: European
This case is cited by:

  • Opinion – Commission v Bulgaria ECJ 14-Jan-2016 (, [2016] EUECJ C-141/14)
    ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2009/147/EC – Conservation of wild birds – Kaliakra and Belite Skali special protection areas – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559126

International Gaming Projects v OHIM (Big Bingo): ECFI 14 Jan 2016

Community trade mark – Application for Community figurative mark BIG BINGO – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
References: T-663/14, [2016] EUECJ T-663/14
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559133

Vodafone v Bundesrepublik Deutschland: ECJ 14 Jan 2016

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services – Directive 2002/21/EC – Article 7(3) – Procedure for consolidating the internal market for electronic communications – Directive 2002/19/EC – Articles 8 and 13 – Operator designated as having significant market power on a market – Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities – Price control and cost accounting obligations – Authorisation of mobile call termination fees
References: C-395/14, [2016] EUECJ C-395/14
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2002/21/EC 7(3), Directive 2002/19/EC 8 13

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559138

Mitsubishi Electric v Commission (Competition : Agreements, Decisions And Concerted Practices): ECFI 19 Jan 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – New decision taken following annulment in part of the initial decision by the Court – Fines – Obligation to state reasons – Principle of good administration – Rights of the defence – Equal treatment – Proportionality – Erroneous application – Starting amount – Extent of contribution to the infringement – Deterrence multiplier
References: T-409/12, [2016] EUECJ T-409/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:17
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559134

Grune Liga Sachsen and Others v Freistaat Sachsen: ECJ 14 Jan 2016

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6(2) to (4) – Site included in the list of sites of Community importance after a project was authorised but before it began to be carried out – Review of the project after the site was included in that list – Rules governing that review – Consequences of the completion of the project for the choice of alternatives
References: [2016] EUECJ C-399/14
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 92/43/EEC 6
This case cites:

  • Opinion – Grune Liga Sachsen and Others v Freistaat Sachsen (Advocate General’s Opinion) ECJ 24-Sep-2015 (C-399/14, , [2015] EUECJ C-399/14 – O)
    Habitats Directive – Special areas of conservation – Site included on the list of sites of Community importance after a construction project was authorised within the site but before work began – Whether necessary to review the initial assessment of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559140

Ntouvas v ECDC: ECFI 14 Jan 2016

ECJ Appeal – Civil service – Contract staff – Reports procedure – Career development report – 2010 appraisal procedure – Dismissal of the action at first instance – Time-limit for submission of the defence – Extension – Exceptional circumstances – Article 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service tribunal – Lawfulness of the appraisal procedure
References: T-94/13, [2016] EUECJ T-94/13
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559135

The Cookware Company v OHMI – Fissler (Vita+Verde): ECFI 14 Jan 2016

ECJ Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark VITA+VERDE – Earlier word mark VITAVIT – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
References: T-535/14, [2016] EUECJ T-535/14
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559130

France v Commission: ECFI 14 Jan 2016

ECJ Agriculture – Export refunds – Poultrymeat – Fixing refund – Euro – Obligation to state reasons – Possibility for the Commission to be limited to a standard motivation – regular practice of the Commission in fixing refunds – Article 164, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 – non-restrictive character of the planned criteria
References: T-549/13, [2016] EUECJ T-549/13
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559132

Grune Liga Sachsen and Others v Freistaat Sachsen (Advocate General’s Opinion): ECJ 24 Sep 2015

Habitats Directive – Special areas of conservation – Site included on the list of sites of Community importance after a construction project was authorised within the site but before work began – Whether necessary to review the initial assessment of the project – Rules governing such review – Consequences of completing the project, pursuant to definitive planning approval, before a final decision could be reached as to the validity of the assessment and review
References: C-399/14, [2015] EUECJ C-399/14 – O
Links: Bailii
Judges: Sharpston AG
Statutes: Directive 92/43/EEC 6
Jurisdiction: European
This case is cited by:

  • Opinion – Grune Liga Sachsen and Others v Freistaat Sachsen ECJ 14-Jan-2016 (, [2016] EUECJ C-399/14)
    ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6(2) to (4) – Site included in the list of sites of Community importance after a project was authorised but before it began to be carried out . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559127

Commission v Greece: ECJ 14 Jan 2016

ECJ Failure to fulfill obligations – Freedom to provide services – Motor vehicles – Decision rental or lease of a motor vehicle by a resident of a Member State with a supplier established in another Member State – Taxation of that vehicle during its registration in the first Member State – Perception of the full amount of the registration tax ‘
References: C-66/15, [2016] EUECJ C-66/15
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559129

Tilly-Sabco v Commission (Judgment (Extracts)): ECFI 14 Jan 2016

ECJ Agriculture – Export refunds – Poultrymeat – the Regulations fixing the refunds – euro – Action for annulment – Regulatory act not involving implementing measures – Direct concern – Admissibility – Article 3, paragraph 3, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 164, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 – Legitimate expectations
References: T-397/13, [2016] EUECJ T-397/13
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559136

Doux v Commission: ECFI 14 Jan 2016

ECJ Agriculture – Export refunds – Poultrymeat – the Regulations fixing the refunds 0 euro – Action for annulment – Regulatory act not involving implementing measures – Direct concern – Admissibility – Article 3, paragraph 3, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 164, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 – Legitimate expectations
References: T-434/13, [2016] EUECJ T-434/13
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559131

Ostas Celtnieks SIA v Talsu novada pasvaldiba, (Advocate Generals Opinion): ECJ 4 Jun 2015

ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Public contracts – Directive 2004/18/EC – Articles 47(2) and 48(3) – Economic operator relying on the capacities of other entities – Obligation to conclude a cooperation agreement or form a partnership with those other entities – Clause on the joint and several liability of the tenderer and other entities
References: C-234/14, [2015] EUECJ C-234/14 – O
Links: Bailii
Judges: Wathelet AG
Statutes: Directive 2004/18/EC
This case is cited by:

  • Opinion – Ostas Celtnieks SIA v Talsu novada pasvaldiba ECJ 14-Jan-2016 (, [2016] EUECJ C-234/14)
    ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement contracts – Directive 2004/18/EC – Economic and financial standing – Technical and/or professional ability – Articles 47(2) and 48(3) – Tender . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559124

University of Oxford (Education (University)): ICO 1 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information from the university in relation to the environmental statement commissioned to review the environmental impact of the Castle Mill student accommodation in Oxford. The university initially withheld the requested information under section 42 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it was decided that the request should have been considered under the EIR. The university reviewed the request and decided to release the requested information to the complainant, with the exception of the personal data of some external third parties, which it considered was exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner has reviewed the application of regulation 13 of the EIR to the remaining withheld information and he is satisfied in this case that the exception has been applied appropriately. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
EIR 13: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FER0585072
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559074

Sussex Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 14 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested from the Sussex Police force information about a police investigation into an alleged serious criminal matter. The Commissioner’s decision is that the force has failed to respond substantively to this request and the Commissioner finds that, in so doing, it breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the force to respond to the request to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50604972
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559070

Welsh Assembly Government (Central Government): ICO 7 Dec 2015

ICO The complaint has requested various items of information in respect of the activities of Visit Wales and its use of two images of Dylan Thomas. Whilst the Welsh Government provided some information, it confirmed that it did not hold information in respect of certain items. It also relied on sections 21, 40, 41 and 42 of the FOIA to refuse a significant amount of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly refused the request under sections 42, 41 and 21, however in failing to provide relevant information within the time for compliance and to issue a valid refusal notice, the Welsh Government has breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 21: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 41: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50580641
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559077

Thames Valley Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 17 Dec 2015

The complainant has requested information concerning the use of RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) by Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’). TVP initially refused the request as being ‘vexatious’ under section 14(1) of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s decision overturning this exclusion, TVP then refused to provide the requested information citing section 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP has correctly applied this section and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50592915
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559071

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 2 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (‘the Council’) relating to the disciplinary file of an employee of the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have maintained its position that it was unable to confirm or deny that the requested information was held in accordance with section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50587221
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559065

Westminster City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 1 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested the details of all cases over the last 10 years where the council has exercised its powers of appropriation under section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 for planning purposes. The council responded to this request citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. It stated that compliance would be manifestly unreasonable on the basis of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request as a whole is manifestly unreasonable based on cost and so regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged. In terms of the public interest test, the Commissioner has decided that the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council was asked to carry out various searches. Whilst doing so, three relevant cases came to light. The council decided to disclose the requested information for these cases to the complainant but withheld certain sections of the reports in question under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner has reviewed the application of regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the redacted sections of the reports the council identified. He has concluded that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR does apply and that the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken in this case.
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FER0574403
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559078

Yorkshire Water Ltd (Other): ICO 3 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested access to databases listing properties at risk of low water pressure (DG2) and properties at risk of internal sewer flooding (DG5). Yorkshire Water Ltd applied the exception at regulation 13(1) EIR to the DG2 and DG5. The Commissioner’s decision is that Yorkshire Water Ltd has correctly withheld the requested information under the exception for personal data at regulation 13. It did not however provide its response within the statutory time for compliance, it therefore breached regulation 5(2) EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 13: Upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FER0590277
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559080

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 15 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to an inquiry into the way a group of whistleblowers have been treated by the Council. The Council provided answers to some of the requested information but refused to provide the terms of reference (part a of the request) under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA to part of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the information withheld under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 36: Upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50590454
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559079

Office for Standards In Education (Education (College)): ICO 2 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant requested inspection notes and emails concerning an Ofsted school inspection. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted is entitled to rely on the exemption from disclosure at s31(1)(g). He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50588285
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559062

University of The Arts London (Education (University)): ICO 17 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information from the University of the Arts London (‘the University’) broadly relating to the University’s MATAR research centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to part of the request. He has also determined that the University does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the remainder of the request. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50586812
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559075

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 7 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of the Desborough Suite Feasibility study. The feasibility study explored the possibility of transforming a suite, at Maidenhead Town Hall into a multi-purpose entertainment centre. The Council refused to provide the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50589332
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559067

University of Bolton (Education (University)): ICO 7 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant requested from the University of Bolton (‘the University’) copies of minutes and papers for a meeting of its Board of Governors in November 2014. The University applied section 14(1) to the request and section 21(1) to part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the whole of the request and has incorrectly applied section 21(1) to part of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In relation to the complainant’s request for the Financial Statements accompanying the agenda for the Board of Governors’ meeting, to provide the complainant with the information to which it has applied section 21(1). In relation to the remaining parts of the request, to provide the complainant with a fresh response under FOIA, which does not rely on section 14(1). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 14: Upheld FOI 21: Upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50592924
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559073

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 17 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant requested from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (‘the Council’) information about its Lender Option Borrower Option (‘LOBO’) loan agreements. The Council provided some information but withheld other information under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information that it has withheld under section 43(2). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 43: Upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50589903
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559066

Queens University Belfast (Education (University)): ICO 1 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the appointment of the new Chancellor at Queen’s University Belfast (‘the University’). The University disclosed some information in response to the complainant’s request, however it refused to disclose the remainder (‘the withheld information.’) The University applied sections 40(2) and 41(1)(a) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 41(1)(a) of FOIA and that it is applicable to the entirety of the withheld information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50587526
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559064

Prendergast School (Education (School)): ICO 17 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information from Prendergast School (‘the School’) broadly relating to its requests for legal advice and copies of legal advice it has received which were referred to in a meeting on 6 November 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School does not hold the information sought in requests 1, 3 and 4. He has also determined that the School correctly withheld the information sought in requests 2 and 5 under section 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the School complied with section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the School to take no steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Not upheld FOI 42: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50587134
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559063

Ursuline Academy (Education (School)): ICO 17 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant made a request to the Ursuline Academy (‘the Academy’) for the autumn 2010 spread sheet relating to the Governing Body Pay Committee/Board of governors which was signed by 3 governors and the head teacher. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance of probabilities, the Academy did not hold a copy of the autumn 2010 spread sheet at the time the request was made. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Academy to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50584318
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559076

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 14 Dec 2015

ICO The complainant submitted a request to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (the Council) seeking information about a proposed development at Moneystone Quarry. The Council provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of his request but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner has previously issued a decision notice (FER0570512) ordering the Council to disclose this information. Having done so, the complainant alleged that the Council would hold further information falling within the scope of his request. During the course of the Commissioner’s subsequent investigation of this further complaint, the Council located a small amount of further information and disclosed this to the complainant. It also located some further information and sought to withhold this on the basis of regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council is entitled to rely on 12(5)(f). He has also concluded that the Council does not hold any further information beyond that previously disclosed to the complainant (at whatever stage) and the information to which regulation 12(5)(f) has now been applied.
EIR 5: Not upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FER0607423
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559068