Category: Information

Department of Trade and Industry (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2005

The complainant requested copies of various bankruptcy orders, to which the public authorities informed the complainant that the information was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that this was communicated to the complainant and furthermore, that the duty to advise and assist under section 16 was adhered to.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50074578

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.533290

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Jun 2007

The complainant made a request for the date of birth information of a number of registered keepers, whose names and address details had previously been provided to him following a vehicle enquiry request to the DVLA. The DVLA initially considered the requested information to be exempt under section 40. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority indicated that to retrieve the information requested would exceed the costs limit under section 12 of the Act because the DVLA would need to instruct its IT contractors to carry out specific searches through its driver database .The Commissioner decided that although it may have been possible to retrieve some information within the costs limit this information would be exempt under section 40 of the Act on the basis that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. He also decided that the DVLA has not breached section 16 of the Act. However the Commissioner has concluded that it did fail to comply with its duty under section 17(1) and section 17(7) of the Act as it failed to state in its refusal notice why the exemption applied or that it had a procedure for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information or the right to appeal to the Commissioner.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50092955

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.532951

Office of The First Minister and Deputy First Minister (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Sep 2011

The complainant has requested information relating to Belfast Islamic Centre from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). The Commissioner’s decision is that OFMDFM has failed to respond to part of the request within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner requires OFMDFM to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: respond to the outstanding part of the request, either by providing the requested information or by issuing a refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50411243

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.530884

Imperial College London (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Oct 2008

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) to the Imperial College London (the ‘college’) for information relating to its admissions guidelines. After considering the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested is not held by the college. The Commissioner considers that the request was not however dealt with in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the Act as the college did not clearly deny that any further information was held. Furthermore the Commissioner considers that section 10(1) of the Act was breached as the college did not comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days of the request.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50180221

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.532743

Office of The Advisory Committee On Businesses Appointments (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Sep 2011

The complainant requested from the public authority the minutes of each meeting it held since May 2009. It withheld some of the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 36 (2)(b) and (c) and 40 of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the public authority had correctly relied upon section 40 and therefore he did not need to consider its reliance on section 36 (2) (b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50386289

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.530883

Chichester District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Sep 2011

The complainant contacted the Council to request information relating to proposals to build affordable housing on a piece of land next to her property. The Council responded refusing to disclose information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. As the complainant remained dissatisfied, she approached the Commissioner. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council claimed a late reliance on regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner has considered the application of these exceptions to the remaining withheld information. In this case he has concluded that regulations 12(4)(e), 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) do not apply. Concerning regulation 13 of the EIR, the Commissioner concluded that this exception had been applied correctly to the names of third parties external to Council. The Commissioner has ordered the Council to release all outstanding withheld information to the complainant, with the names of external third parties redacted, within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.d – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0349127

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.530819

British Waterways Marinas Ltd (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jul 2007

The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) a copy of an objection that had been made to him operating a sailing school from a marina owned and operated by the public authority. The public authority refused to disclose this information, stating that this was due to ‘commercial confidentiality’. At the start of the investigation the Commissioner established that British Waterways Marinas Ltd was a publicly-owned company, as defined by section 6(1)(b) of the Act, and was therefore a public authority for the purposes of the Act. During the investigation the public authority confirmed to the Commissioner that it believed the disclosure of this information would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). After investigating the complaint the Commissioner was satisfied that the complainant was a sole trader, and that the information in question formed part of his personal data. Therefore the Commissioner decided that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act but that the public authority should have treated the request as a subject access request under section 7 of the DPA. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50100127

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.532979

Thames Valley Police (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Feb 2012

The complainant requested information from Thames Valley Police (the Police) about the death of former weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, in 2003. The Police refused to comply with these requests on the basis that they were vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police were entitled to refuse to comply with these requests on the basis that they were vexatious. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0040 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50418745

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.529236

Warwickshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Feb 2012

The complainant has requested the additional costs Warwickshire County Council (the Council) incurred in 2009 and 2010 as a result of a named school (the school) going into special measures, along with relevant financial statements or accounts. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 12(1) exemption did not apply because the Council did not provide a satisfactory estimate of its costs for full compliance with the information request and so did not demonstrate that section 12(1) FOIA was engaged.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50413181

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.529242

East Lancashire Hospitals Nhs Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Dec 2010

On 25 August 2010 the complainant requested that the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust should provide him with information concerning knee arthroscopy procedures which had been carried out between 2004 and 2009 and had resulted in complications. The complainant has received no substantive response. The Commissioner therefore finds the public authority to be in breach of section 10(1) of the Act and instructs the Trust to provide a substantive response or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50352266

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.531855

New Forest District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2012

The complainant requested correspondence held by the authority which was produced or received by a councillor relating to a licensing application for holding public events in a converted barn in part of the New Forest. The council disclosed some information which it said it did hold. However it also claimed that it did not hold information in relation to the councillor’s correspondence when she was not acting on behalf of the authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the New Forest District Council was correct to state that it did not hold further relevant information in this instance. However it breached Regulation 14(3) when responding to the complainant as the information is environmental information and the council should therefore have responded under the EIR and applied Regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held). The Commissioner therefore does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0400055

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.529332

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Sep 2011

The complainant requested information created as a result of the council’s job evaluation exercise. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council has incorrectly applied the exemption at section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act to four of the complainant’s requests for information. He however finds that the council has disclosed all of the information that it holds in relation to two other requests. The council has breached section 10(1) of the Act by failing to comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the information withheld under section 36(2)(c) to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50348537

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.530889

Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2012

The complainant requested a copy of the Employment Tribunal’s judgment involving the former Chief Executive of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50423112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.529344

Western Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jun 2007

The complainant made two sets of requests to the Cheshire West NHS Primary Care Trust (the ‘PCT’) for a number of pieces of information relating to a doctor who had been investigated by the PCT in connection to allegations of criminal offences. By the time of the second set of requests the doctor had appeared in court. These events were related to two ‘protected disclosures’ which the complainant had made to the PCT. The PCT withheld all of the information it held which fell under these requests under section 40(2). The PCT also claimed section 30, section 31 and section 42 for some of the information in question. After considering the case the Commissioner upheld the PCT’s decision to withhold the information under section 40(2). Therefore he did not go on to consider the application of the other exemptions. The Commissioner did, however, find that the PCT had not complied with some of the procedural requirements of the Act, namely section 10 and section 17. The Western Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust has since taken over responsibilities for this Trust, and therefore this Notice is addressed to it.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50102203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.532975

Derbyshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Sep 2011

The complainants requested information held by the council regarding information it held on any investigation or complaint regarding work they intended to carry out on their property. The complainants argued that the land in question belonged to them and that there were no highway rights over it which would prevent them from carrying out the works. The council however needed to consider whether the works would infringe upon highway rights. The council withheld most of the information on the grounds that it was exempt under Regulation 13(1) as it was the personal information of third parties. It also withheld some information under Regulation 5(3) on the grounds that it was the personal data of the applicants. It also found that other information was exempt under Regulations 12(5)(f) and 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply all of the exceptions. He finds however that the council breached Regulations 5(2) and Regulation 14(2) in its handling of the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0219 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0368830

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.530833

London Development Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Mar 2012

The complainant requested information relating to the amounts deducted from compensation paid to residents of Clays Lane estate in Stratford East London following the enforcement of a Compulsory Purchase Order. The complainant also requested minutes of meetings held with one of the resident groups. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the public authority did not hold information relevant to items i and ii of the request. The public authority however held information within the scope of item iii of the request which has since been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner subsequently finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold additional information within the scope of item iii. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50420249

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.529323

Northern Ireland Water (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jun 2011

The complainant has made a series of information requests to NI Water. The three requests relevant to this complaint relate to correspondence between NI Water staff and third parties about various matters. NI Water disclosed a significant amount of information to the complainant. A small section of information relating to the second request was withheld under section 40(2) of the Act. NI Water advised that it did not hold any further information relevant to the request. The Commissioner has carefully considered NI Water’s handling of the requests, and whilst he has found that the disputed information did fall within the scope of the complainant’s third request, he has not found any evidence to suggest NI Water deliberately withheld the information knowing the complainant was entitled to receive it. The Commissioner finds that some of the information in the second request that had been withheld under section 40(2) should be disclosed and has recorded a number of procedural breaches in relation to the handling of requests two and three.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50322704

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.530596

Derbyshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Feb 2007

The complainant made requests for over 50 pieces of information to the member organisations of Derbyshire Safety Camera Partnership (‘DSCP’). The requests were made over a total of 19 occasions and were all related to an alleged road traffic offence. The complainant received relevant information and advice in relation to his requests, until he made a request dated 7 March 2006 to Derbyshire Constabulary. This request was considered by the police to be vexatious and repeated. DSCP responded on behalf of the Constabulary and refused to provide information citing section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner considered that the requests were made to different DSCP partners, each separately recognised by the Act, and determined that the requests could not be aggregated for the purpose of applying section 14. In an attempt to resolve the complaint informally the Constabulary was asked to reconsider its refusal and to supply to the complainant the requested information. The Constabulary agreed to this proposal and provided the complainant with additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that initially the Constabulary failed to comply with section 1 (1) of the Act, inappropriately relying on section 14. However, following his intervention, further information has now been supplied to the applicant and the Commissioner is satisfied that the Constabulary has now complied with the requirements of Part I of the Act. Therefore he has not ordered the Constabulary to take any steps.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50117259

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.532836

Hampshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Aug 2008

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has ordered the Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary to disclose the make and model of vehicles provided for personal use to two Assistant Chief Constables. This follows a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details about the cars provided to Chief Police Officers for their personal use. The public authority confirmed that two Assistant Chief Constables are provided with vehicles for their own use.
FOI 31: Upheld FOI 38: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50129974

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.532700

Nursing and Midwifery Council (Monetary Penalty Notice): ICO 15 Feb 2013

A monetary penalty has been served to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The council lost three DVDs related to a nurse’s misconduct hearing, which contained confidential personal information and evidence from two vulnerable children. An ICO investigation found the information was not encrypted.

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.528003

Sussex Police (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2007

The complainant requested investigation information relating to a serious allegation that was made against him. The public authority refused to provide this information citing Section 30(1) and Section 30(2) (Information obtained during an investigation), Section 38 (Health and Safety), Section 40(1) (Personal Data relating to the applicant) and Section 40(2) (Unfair Disclosure of Personal Data). The Commissioner has decided that the public authority should have specified in its refusal notice that it did not hold some of the requested information. In failing to do so, it contravened the requirements of Section 1(1) (a) of the Act. In relation to the withheld information, the Commissioner has decided that it was exempt under Section 30(1). The Commissioner has also decided that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure in relation to the majority of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner has decided that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure in relation to one officer statement included in the withheld information. The Commissioner has also decided that it would not breach any of the data protection principles to disclose the names of officers mentioned in the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the specified officer statement and to disclose the names of officers mentioned in the withheld information within 35 calendar days of the date of this Notice.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50118209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.532853

Hertfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Feb 2007

The complainant asked for information relating to a correction that was made in The Fire and Rescue Community Safety Plan Topic Group Report. Initially the complainant asked for evidence of the correction being made by the Executive Member and, following a letter of clarification from the Council, the complainant submitted a further request for evidence of both the Chief Fire Officer and the Executive Member having made the correction. The Commissioner investigated and found that Council had not met the duty to confirm or deny whether it holds information under section 1 of the Act in relation to either request. He asked the Council to review its response to both requests and it subsequently confirmed that it holds no records of the Executive Member making the correction but the Chief Fire Officer had sent an email about the correction which had not been retained. Following the Commissioner’s request that the Council explain what checks had been made, the Council located a copy of the email and supplied it to the complainant.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50137037

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.532840

Wales Office (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2012

The complainant requested the names of individuals invited to attend a St David’s Day Event at Gwydyr House. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the requested information on the basis of the exemption at section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50414251

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.529241

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Feb 2007

The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner) decision in this matter is that the Northern Ireland Office (the ‘NIO’) has failed to deal with the complainant’s request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘Act’). That is because the Commissioner considers that the NIO incorrectly applied the section 31(1)(a) exemption to the requested information as a ‘blanket’ exemption to the request. In addition, the NIO failed to provide an adequate refusal notice under section 17 of the Act. Also the NIO failed to provide to the applicant adequate advice and assistance in order to clarify his request in accordance with section 16 of the Act. However, as a result of the intervention of the Commissioner, some of the requested information has now been disclosed. In relation to the remaining information (the ‘withheld information’), the Commissioner is satisfied that the NIO has correctly withheld this information and that it is exempt by virtue of sections 23, 24, 31, 36, 40(2), 41 and 42 of the Act.
FOI 31: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50074788

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.532845

Department for Communities and Local Government (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Sep 2011

The complainant requested copies of the legal advice sought by the Department for Communities and Local Government relating to the issue of whether Energy Performance Certificates for private dwellings contain personal data according to the definition in the Data Protection Act 1998. DCLG withheld the legal advice using section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It said that the public interest did not favour disclosure. The Commissioner investigated and decided that the legal advice had been correctly withheld. He does not require any steps to be taken. The Commissioner also found a breach of section 17(1) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0227 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50384153

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.530826

North Somerset Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Feb 2013

The complainant requested all records held by North Somerset Council in relation to information security incidents. The Council initially provided an edited version of the information it held, but provided all the requested information following an internal review. The Commissioner finds that the Council ought to have provided the complainant with the requested information in its original response to his request. However as the Council has now disclosed the information the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50452135

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.528000

Bank of England (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Mar 2012

The complainant has requested confirmation of any conditions or controls attached to the Bank of England (BoE)’s purchasing of assets, with particular reference made to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and other financial institutions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information, to the extent that it is held, relates to the ‘monetary policy’ of the BoE and does not fall under FOIA. He does not therefore require the BoE to take any further steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50432444

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.529258

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (Decision Notice) FS50368010: ICO 18 Aug 2011

The complainant submitted a request for information to the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. The Council failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. Consequently the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10(1) of the Act. He does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50368010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.530784

Saleem v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 14 Jul 2014

The Commissioner had rejected a complaint after a request for information from the BBC after it described Jerusalem as an Israeli city.

Judges:

NJ Warren

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 2014 – 0150 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.534403

Sanders v Information Commissioner (Original Decision Upheld Freedom of Information Act 2000): FTTGRC 7 Jul 2015

Freedom of Information Act 2000 ss 40(1) – personal data of applicant, 40(2) – personal data of others and 32 – court records.

Citations:

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0243 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.552487

Ian Pratt v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 4 Jan 2013

‘the Blagdon Parish Council (‘The Council’) did not hold certain information regarding its financial budgeting and recording, which the Appellant had requested, but that his request for that information had not been vexatious. We have decided, by a majority, that two further requests were vexatious.’

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 2012 – 0133 (GRC)

Statutes:

The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Local Government

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.468783

Sevenoaks District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 15 Aug 2017

The complainant has requested information about specific expenditure at Sevenoaks District Council (SDC). Some of the requested information has been disclosed, it is SDC’s position that some of the information is not held and the remainder of the request has been refused by SDC relying on sections 12 and 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that SDC is entitled to rely on section 21 to refuse parts of the request and that on the balance of probabilities some of the information is not held but that SDC has not satisfactorily established that the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit and is not therefore entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse to comply with the request. Furthermore, SDC has failed to provide any advice or assistance to the complainant and accordingly has breached section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information which has been withheld in accordance with section 12. 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 1: Not upheld FOI 12: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50664496

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.594009

Edate Advertising v X: ECJ 29 Mar 2011

ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction ‘in tort or quasi-delict’ – Violation of personal rights that may have been committed by the publication of information on the Internet – Article 5, Section 3 – Definition of ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ – Applicability Shevill jurisprudence of the Court of Justice – Directive 2000/31/EC – Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 – Determination of the existence of a conflict rule on rights of personality.

Citations:

C-161/10, [2011] EUECJ C-161/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – eDate Advertising GmbH v X ECJ 25-Oct-2011
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive . .
See Also – Edate Advertising v X, Martinez v MGN Ltd ECJ 25-Oct-2011
Grand Chamber – Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.431348

Valuation Office Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jan 2007

The complainant requested information held by the Valuation Office Agency about the legal basis and advice provided by the Treasury Solicitor regarding Forms of Return. The public authority confirmed that it held the requested information but was withholding it under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (section 42) claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has considered the legal advice in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied section 42 correctly.
FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50086086

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.532822

Office for National Statistics (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Sep 2011

The complainant requested information from the Office for National Statistics relating to the 1921 census return. The public authority withheld the requested information, relying on the exemptions under sections 44(1)(a) and 22(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 44(1)(a), and does not therefore require the public authority to take any steps in relation to this request. However, the public authority failed to meet the requirements of section 17 when dealing with this request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0241 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50368663

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.530882

G v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 1 Jul 2014

Judges:

NJ Warren

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 2011 – 0101 (GRC), EA/2011/0101

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – G v Information Commissioner and English Hertitage UTAA 22-May-2013
Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT) – The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) following a paper hearing in relation to the Appellant’s appeal involves an error on a point of law. The First-tier Tribunal’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.534400

Stott v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 16 Jul 2014

FTTGC Dismissed – Formulation or development of government policy s.35(1)(a) – We have decided to dismiss the appeal because the records of meetings of a Task and Finish Group established by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2012 in respect of certain proposed legislation was exempt information under section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’) and the public interest in maintaining that exemption, at the date of the request for information, outweighed the public interest in its disclosure.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 2013 – 0278 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.534404

Cross v Information Commissioner (The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009): FTTGRC 23 Aug 2013

The claimant had complained about the failure by a local authority to provide certain information. On the direction of the respondent Commissioner, the Council provided the information. The claimant sought compensation for the failure to provide the information withing 20 days, and appealed against the respondent’s decision that he should receive nothing, and now against the request of the Commissioner to have his complaint struck out as unreasonable.
Held: The complaint should be struck out as unreasonable. The claimant suffered dyslexia, but had shown through this and previous actions that he was able to conduct proceedings skilfully. It was unnecessary to require an oral hearing for him to present his case.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 2013 – 0058 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.514751

Steven Freeborn v Information Commissioner (Dismissed) (The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009): FTTGRC 15 Aug 2013

Dismissed on receipt of notice of withdrawal.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 2013 – 0084 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.514760