Category: Scotland

David Blair, Esq of Dunskey v Messrs Douglas, Heron, and Co: HL 30 Apr 1777

Partnership – Articles. – In the articles of copartnery of the Douglas, Heron, and Co.’s Banking Company, it was provided that the heirs and executors of a deceasing partner should be obliged to receive and draw his share in the stock and profits thereof, as the same should be ascertained by the last balance struck immediately preceding his death. The last balance was struck in November 1771. The appellant’s brother died in October 1772; but in June 1772, the Company had become insolvent. In an action raised by the appellant, held that the clause of the contract could not apply to the circumstances of this case, in respect the Company had become bankrupt several months before Mr Blair’s death.

Citations:

[1777] UKHL 6 – Paton – 796, (1777) 6 Paton 796

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Company

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.562008

Grizel Lady Sempill, Widow of Colonel Richard Cuninghame Deceased v Alexander Murray of Broughton, Esq; Et e Contra: HL 4 Mar 1720

Presumption – In 1691, a Colonel gives his Lieutenant Colonel a draft on his agent for 250 l. and also pays him 50 l. in cash, for which a receipt is granted: in a statement of all the officers’ accounts in 1692, the Lieut. Col. takes no notice of the transaction in 1691, but mentions that he had received 75 l. 112 s. 8 d. on account of his pay, without stating from whom: in an action, after the death of the parties, in 1719, it is held that the draft for 250 l. was not presumed to have been paid by the drawee, unless it was otherwise instructed; but that the 50 l paid by the Colonel was not included in the 75 l. 12 s. 8 d. acknowledged to have been received by the Lieut. Col.
Writ – An objection made to a receipt between officers, that it was void, being neither holograph, nor having the solemnities required by the acts of parliament relative to the testing of writings, is not sustained.
Was a deed written and executed at Dublin valid, which bore to be ‘written by Edward Dudgeon, Gentleman?’ see note at the end of this case.

Citations:

[1720] UKHL Robertson – 282, (1720) Robertson 282

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.553645

The Commissioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v Sir Robert Grierson, of Lagg, Bart: HL 30 Mar 1720

Forfeiture – Tailzie – A father executes an entail in favour of his son; the son incurs an irritancy, but before declarator is attainted of treason: the Court of Session found that the estate returned to the father, though there was no declarator of the irritancy, and that the irritancy was not purgeable:- upon appeal, the judgment was found null, the Court not having jurisdiction.
The estate being held by the son upon a base infeftment from the father, the procurators of resignation in the hands of the Crown not having been executed, and an act of parliament having declared, that the estates of vassals attainted were to go to superiors continuing loyal; the Court upon this act adjudged the estate to the father; but their judgment was reversed upon appeal.

Citations:

[1720] UKHL Robertson – 298, (1720) Robertson 298

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.553644

The Commissioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v Kenneth Mackenzie of Assint, A Minor, By Colonel Alexander Mackenzie, His Curator: HL 1 Mar 1720

Estates forfeited by vassals were acquired by the trustees for a Papist superior, but were forfeited again by the Papist’s treason.

Citations:

[1720] UKHL Robertson – 280, (1720) Robertson 280

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.553643

HK v General Pharmaceutical Council: SCS 11 Jul 2014

Appeal from Fitness to Practice Committee of the General Pharmaceutical Council. The practitioner had been suspended, but the penalty was imposed without apparent consideration of the committee’s power to make an alternative order

Judges:

Lord Drummond Young

Citations:

[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 61

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Pharmacy Order 2010

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council SC 14-Dec-2016
The pharmacist had been removed from register the for a year after findings of domestic abuse. The court now considered what inquiry was required on an application for a continuation of that suspension.
Held: The different appeals of both the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.534157

Milleer v Chivas Brothers Ltd: SCS 11 Jul 2014

Extra Division, Inner House – The appellant averred that she had fallen and injured herself on a floor made slippery by an accumulation of cardboard dust. The respondents averred that they operated a cleaning schedule under which floors required to be cleaned regularly to eliminate the build-up of dust, that the appellant had reported to a fellow employee Karen Griffin that the accident had been her own fault, and did not mention that she slipped on dust.

Judges:

Lady Dorrian, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Philip

Citations:

[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 65

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Scotland, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.534169

Milne v Angus Council: SIC 13 Dec 2005

Facts
Mr Milne wrote to Angus Council requesting all of the information that related to him, including minutes of meetings, internal memos, correspondence and e-mails. Mr Milne was informed on a number of occasions that his request constituted a request for personal information about himself and should be dealt with under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). He was asked to provide proof of identity to allow his request to be processed under the DPA. This was provided by Mr Milne, but he complained to Angus Council, stating that he wanted his request to be dealt with under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). He then requested a review in which Angus Council upheld its original decision to treat the request under the DPA. Mr Milne was provided with information by Angus Council under the DPA, but he was dissatisfied with the response he had received in relation to his request for a review under FOISA and applied to the Scottish Information Commissioner for a decision.
Outcome
The Commissioner found that Angus Council had complied with section 1(1) of FOISA in deciding to withhold personal information under section 38(1)(a) on the basis that Mr Milne’s request for all information relating to him constituted a request for personal information of which he was the data subject and as such should be dealt with under the terms of the DPA. The Commissioner was satisfied that information concerning Mr Milne and Trading Standards was not held by Angus Council under section 17 of FOISA, and that Angus Council had complied fully with the provisions of FOISA.

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 075 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434796

Milne v Chief Constable of Tayside Police: SIC 15 Dec 2005

SIC Request for information relating to the applicant – information exempt under section 38(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – personal information – failure to respond to the request within the 20 working day timescale set out in section 10(1) of the Act – failure to respond to the request for review within the 20 working day timescale set out in section 21(1) of the Act – content of certain notices under section 19 of the Act.

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 077 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434797

P and Dumfries and Galloway Council: SIC 7 Nov 2005

SIC Failure to respond to request for information and request for review – request for personal data about the applicant – section 38(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) – failure to respond to request for information within timescale required by section 10 of FOISA – failure to respond to request for review within timescale required by section 21 of FOISA – failure to provide advice and assistance as required by section 15 of FOISA

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 047 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434779

Carl Reavey and Caledonian Macbrayne Limited: SIC 30 Nov 2005

Request for information about losses attributable to the Islay service – section 33(1)(b) – whether release would or would be likely to prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person – failure to provide a refusal notice in accordance with section 16

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 061 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434771

Mclean, Chief Executive of Argyll Group Plc and Caledonian MacBrayne Limited: SIC 22 Nov 2005

Refusal to provide a copy of the general arrangement plans of the MV Bute
Request for plans of a ferry currently in service – health and safety – section 39 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) – whether release would prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person – section 33 of FOISA – consideration of the public interest

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 055 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434786

Hutcheon, The Sunday Herald and Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body: SIC 6 Oct 2005

SIC Paul Hutcheon, a journalist with The Sunday Herald, asked the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (the SPCB) for a copy of David McLetchie MSP’s travel claims supporting mileage, air travel, car hire and taxis since 1999. Copies of the travel claims were provided to Mr Hutcheon, but information, including the taxi destinations, was redacted. Mr Hutcheon asked the SPCB to review its decision to redact the destination in the taxi invoices. The SPCB subsequently carried out a review, but upheld its original decision, advising Mr Hutcheon that releasing the information would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. Mr Hutcheon subsequently applied to the Commissioner for a decision on whether the SPCB was correct not to provide the taxi destinations to him.

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 033 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434766

Uprichard v Fife Council: SIC 21 Nov 2005

Request for information relating to a planning application made to Fife Council – Failure of Fife Council to respond to an information request and subsequent request for review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 049 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Cited by:

See Also – Uprichard v Fife Council SIC 15-Aug-2006
Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – personal information section 38(1)(b) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information, Planning

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434784

Uprichard v Fife Council: SIC 15 Aug 2006

Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – personal information section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA)

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 153 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 38(1)(b)

Citing:

See Also – Uprichard v Fife Council SIC 21-Nov-2005
Request for information relating to a planning application made to Fife Council – Failure of Fife Council to respond to an information request and subsequent request for review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434660

Lochhead MSP and Scottish Executive: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Discussions on impact of EU Constitution – Mr Lochhead requested from the Scottish Executive (the Executive) copies of all correspondence regarding discussions between the Executive and the UK Government regarding the EU Constitution and its potential impact in Scotland.
The Executive refused Mr Lochhead’s request, initially citing 9 exemptions. Following Mr Lochhead’s application to the Commissioner, the Executive also informed the Commissioner that it believed it was entitled to refuse the request under section 12(1) of FOISA (Excessive cost of compliance).
The Commissioner found that the Executive acted in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA in refusing to respond to Mr Lochhead’s information request, in that section 12(1) of FOISA constituted appropriate grounds for refusal in the circumstances of the case.

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 204 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434702

Blane and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Information relating to work related sick leave in Scottish Borders Council – failure to respond to the request in line with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – whether the information requested is held

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 207 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434705

Carberry and Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Postcode-based information about the location of registered sex offenders – Request for information about the location of registered sex offenders based on the first four characters of a postcode and their housing tenure – some information not held (section 17) – section 12(1) excessive cost of compliance

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 206 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434701

Milne v Chief Constable of Tayside Police: SIC 26 Jun 2006

SIC Failure to deal with request or review – Failure of the Chief Constable of Tayside Police to respond to a request for information and to a request for a review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 124 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434617

Uttley and The University of Edinburgh: SIC 25 Jul 2006

Information about Thomas Hamilton’s post mortem – whether the information is held for the purposes of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 by the University of Edinburgh – information not held

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 138 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434637

Cooper v Aberdeen City Council: SIC 13 Mar 2006

SIC Request for a copy of a report commissioned by Aberdeen City Council – withheld on the basis of section 38(1)(b) (personal information) and section 36(2) (actionable breach of confidence) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) – Commissioner held report exempt under section 30(c) of FOISA

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 039 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434532

DH Telford On Behalf of VB Contracts Ltd and East Lothian Council: SIC 29 Mar 2006

SIC Request for due diligence information – failure by the Council to respond to the request under section 10(1) of FOISA – failure to issue a notice of review in accordance with section 21 – information subsequently supplied by authority during the course of the investigation – applicant remained dissatisfied – held that all of the information held by the Council in relation to the request has now been supplied to the applicant

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 057 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434533

Arunabha Das Gupta v Scottish Court Service: SIC 17 Dec 2007

SIC Four requests for information regarding individuals and practices at the Scottish Court Service ? Commissioner required disclosure of the dates of appointment of two officials, but accepted that the remaining information withheld was exempt under section 38(1)(b) and that other information was not held under section 17 ? Commissioner found that certain questions had not been responded to at the time of the requests, but no further action required.

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 229 – 2007

Links:

Bailii, IPK

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434491

McGregor v Common Services Agency of The Scottish Health Service: SIC 2 Jul 2007

SIC Request for data on medical negligence claims – section 30(c), section 33(1)(b) and section 36(1) applied – public interest considered

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 098 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 1 2, The Freedom of Information (Fees for Required Disclosure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004

Scotland, Information, Health Professions

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434384

Doherty v The Common Services Agency for The Scottish Health Service: SIC 22 Aug 2007

Information relating to the death of Joseph Doherty – Request for information relating to the death of Joseph Doherty – information withheld – the Commissioner generally upheld the use of the exemption by the CSA

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 146 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434401

Mary Smith and West Lothian Council: SIC 6 Nov 2008

Membership of Committee – Mrs Smith requested from West Lothian Council (the Council) the names and posts of members of the Committee which had approved the Council’s Fair Treatment at Work Policy. The Council responded by releasing the names of the Councillors present at the relevant meeting of the Policy, Partnership and Resources Committee. Mrs Smith was also advised that minutes could be viewed on the West Lothian Council website. Following a review, Mrs Smith remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mrs Smith’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by providing her with the information she had requested and reasonable advice and assistance to facilitate a further request.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 141 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434248

Russell Findlay v Scottish Police Services Authority: SIC 18 Dec 2008

Photographic image of badge – Mr Findlay requested from the Scottish Police Services Authority (the SPSA) a photographic image of a particular badge used by officers to identify themselves to the public. The SPSA responded by indicating that this information was not held. Following a review, Mr Findlay remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPSA had dealt with Mr Findlay’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA by stating, in terms of section 17(1) of FOISA, that it did not hold the information requested.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 159 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434265

Rob Edwards and Scottish Ministers: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges – Mr Edwards made two requests to the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. The Ministers responded by providing Mr Edwards with some of the information falling within the scope of his requests. However, the Ministers withheld certain documentation under various exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Mr Edwards remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Ministers notified the Commissioner that on further consideration of the requests, they now considered that the costs of compliance with each request would exceed andpound;600 (and therefore that they were not obliged to comply with the requests in terms of section 12(1) of FOISA). The Ministers subsequently provided the Commissioner with an estimate of the projected costs of compliance.
As a result of the investigation, the Commissioner found that the projected costs of compliance in each case would exceed andpound;600 and that the Ministers were not required to respond to the requests.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 154 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434261

Loveday’s and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 8 Dec 2008

SIC Failure to respond to a request for information within the required timescales and failure to respond to a request for review.
This decision considers whether Scottish Borders Council (the Council) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request made by Loveday’s. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to comply with the timescales specified in sections 10(1) and 21(1) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 153 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434255

Peterson v Shetland Islands Council: SIC 15 Dec 2008

Failure to respond to a request for information and requirements for review within the required timescales – This decision considers whether Shetland Islands Council (the Council) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to information requests made by Mr Peterson.
The Council failed to respond to Mr Peterson’s information request in one instance and his requests for review in respect of this and another request for information. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to comply with the relevant timescales specified in sections 10(1) and 21(1) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 158 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434259

W and Scottish Court Service: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Regulations, Rules of Court and procedures – Mr W requested from the Scottish Court Service (SCS) copies of regulations and rules of court, along with advice regarding a particular case. The SCS responded by providing a copy of the requested regulations, while declining to provide advice. Following a review, during which Mr W was informed under section 17 of FOISA that information was not held, Mr W remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the SCS also claimed some of the information to be exempt in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA, the Commissioner found that the information requested was either not held or exempt in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA in that it was otherwise accessible to the applicant.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 150 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434262

Councillor Danny Carrigan and Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Addresses and sales dates of specific properties – Councillor Danny Carrigan (Councillor Carrigan) requested from the Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board (the Board) the exact addresses and sales dates of the three properties whose selling price had been used to determine the council tax banding of a property inhabited by one of his constituents. The Board responded by advising Councillor Carrigan that it considered the information exempt from disclosure in terms of section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Councillor Carrigan remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Board had dealt with Councillor Carrigan’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by correctly applying the exemption in section 25(1) of FOISA to the withheld information. He did not require the Board to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 151 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434253

Capacity Building Project and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 8 Dec 2008

SIC Investigation into complaints against the Capacity Building Project – Summary – The Capacity Building Project (the Project) requested from the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) copies of original letters of complaint, a list of individuals interviewed in the course of an investigation conducted by the Council and the transcripts of interviews conducted as part of the investigation. The Council responded by providing the Project with redacted versions of the complaint letters, where it has withheld information in terms of section 36(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Council also withheld the list of interviewees and the transcripts of those interviews in terms of sections 36(2), 35(1)(g) and 35(2)(b) of FOISA. Following a review, the Council also applied the exemption in section 38(1)(b) to the information withheld. The Project remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with the Project’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA because all of the information withheld was exempt from disclosure. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 152 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434252

Shutt v Argyll and Bute Council: SIC 7 Aug 2008

SIC Details of grants paid for common repairs to a block of flats – Mrs Shutt requested details of the total grant and the grant per apartment paid for common repairs to a block of flats from Argyll and Bute Council (the Council). When the Council did not respond to her initial request, Mrs Shutt requested a review. In its response, the Council provided details of the total grant but withheld the grant per apartment under section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Mrs Shutt remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the information withheld was not exempt from disclosure in terms of section 38(1)(b) of FOISA and required the Council to release details of the grant paid for each apartment to Mrs Shutt.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 093 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434205

Emslie and Scottish Ministers: SIC 2 Jul 2008

Correspondence and other information held by Communities Scotland
Mr David Emslie (Mr Emslie) made two separate sets of information requests seeking a wide range of information from Communities Scotland, which was at that time was an agency of the Scottish Government. These requests are reproduced in Appendix 2 of this decision.
Communities Scotland responded to the first set of requests by stating that it had already supplied much of this information to Mr Emslie and to supply the remainder would exceed the prescribed limit of andpound;600 set out in the Freedom of Information (Fees for Required Disclosure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the Fees Regulations). Mr Emslie asked Communities Scotland to review its decision.
Following telephone discussions with Mr Emslie, during which Communities Scotland understood Mr Emslie to have narrowed his information request, it carried out a review and, as a result, notified Mr Emslie that all material had already been supplied to Mr Emslie and there was no further releasable material.
In responding to the second set of requests, Communities Scotland also understood discussions with Mr Emslie to have narrowed the scope of his requests. It again stated that all releasable information had been supplied. This response was reiterated following an internal review. However, at this stage, Communities Scotland also claimed that Mr Emslie’s second set of requests were vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA.
Mr Emslie remained dissatisfied with Communities Scotland’s responses and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Communities
Scotland would have been entitled to refuse to comply with both sets of Mr Emslie’s information requests since they were vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA.
However, the Commissioner found that Communities Scotland had failed to respond to Mr Emslie’s two requests for review within the 20 working day timescale set out in section 21(1) of FOISA and accordingly had not dealt with the requests in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He did not require Communities Scotland to take any action in relation to these breaches of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 074 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434179

Falconer v Common Services Agency for The Scottish Health Service: SIC 22 Jul 2008

Report produced by NHS Counter Fraud Services – Mr John Falconer (Mr Falconer) requested a copy of a report prepared by NHS Scotland Counter Fraud Services (CFS) into NHS Lothian’s Laboratory Van Service from the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service (the CSA). The CFS is part of the CSA. The CSA refused to provide the report on the basis that it was exempt under section 34 (Investigations by Scottish public authorities and proceedings arising out of such investigations) and section 35 (Law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the CSA had been entitled to withhold the report on the basis that its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially its statutory function in relation to the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities within the NHS.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 084 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434184

David Walker v Falkirk Council: SIC 18 Dec 2009

Council procedures – Mr David Walker asked Falkirk Council (the Council) to supply any recorded information relating to two questions arising from previous correspondence with the Council. The Council initially failed to reply, and Mr Walker asked for a review of this decision. The Council then wrote to advise Mr Walker that information relating to his first request was not held. It provided some information associated with, but not covered by, the terms of his second request. Mr Walker remained dissatisfied and applied for a decision from the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council did not hold any recorded information covered by either of Mr Walker’s requests. The Commissioner found that the Council had not given Mr Walker notice that some of the information requested was not held, and in this respect had failed to comply with section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Commissioner also found that the Council had failed to comply with the statutory timescale for responding to the request. He did not require the Council to take any action in respect of these failures.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 147 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 17(1)

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434091