Category: Information

Turner (OBO Macclesfield Express) v Icnformation Commissioner (Dismissed Environmental Information Regulations 2004): FTTGRC 13 Nov 2014

Dismissed Environmental Information Regulations 2004 – Environmental Information Regulations:
r 13 – personal data
r 12(5)(b) adverse effect upon inquiries of a disciplinary nature
r 12(5)(d) confidentiality of proceedings

Fiona Henderson (Judge)
[2014] UKFTT 2014 – 0009 (GRC)
Bailii
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540446

Jonathan Brain v Information Commissioner (Dismissed Freedom of Information Act 2000): FTTGRC 15 Sep 2014

Whether information is held by Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) – arises from a planning application for a proposed waste incinerator and correspondence which began in October 2012 between Mr Kenneth Kolb (the Appellant) and BCC.
2. Essentially the Appellant believes that BCC held and continues to hold information that it has not disclosed to him. Dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 2013 – 0127 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540416

Kings College London v Information Commissioner (Dismissed Freedom of Information Act 2000): FTTGRC 30 Sep 2014

FTTG FOIA section 40(2) – whether disclosure of personal data would breach the first data protection principle – FOIA section 43(2) – whether disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the public authority

Anisa Dhanji TJ
[2014] UKFTT 2014 – 0074 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540418

Cumbria County Council (Local Government): ICO 6 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to a school crossing patrol which is no longer in place. The council initially disclosed some information however the complainant said that this relates to a different crossing patrol. The council argues that no further information is held relating to the specific crossing patrol which the complainant is referring to. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council did find one document which falls within the scope of the complainant’s request for information which the Commissioner requires it to disclose to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, other than this document, on a balance of probabilities, the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) on the basis that it does not hold any further information which falls within the scope of the complainant’s request for information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose a copy of the School Crossing Patrol Guidance (2014) to the complainant.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint partly upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-67638
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.669620

Tudor Grange Academies Trust (Education): ICO 12 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information about careers provision. Tudor Grange Academies Trust refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the Trust was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. As the Trust also failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, it breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, that does not rely on section 14 of the FOIA.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 14: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-95180
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.669675

Nasresfahani v The Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another (Information Rights : Data Protection): UTAA 14 Oct 2014

The Appellant appealed by letter under Section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 from the reliance by the Second Respondent on a certificate of the First Respondent that certain of the personal data requested by the Appellant was exempt for the purpose of safeguarding national security in accordance with the terms of that certificate.

[2014] UKUT 487 (AAC)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998 28
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539093

John v Information Commissioner and Ofsted (Information Rights : Freedom of Information – Right of Access): UTAA 6 Oct 2014

Information Rights : Freedom of Information – Right of Access
‘Suppose that both a public authority and a person who has requested information from that authority disagree with a decision notice served by the Information Commissioner under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which I call FOIA. Is it necessary for them to make separate appeals or can the tribunal deal with the issues raised by one party on an appeal by the other? I have decided that although cross-appeals are permissible, they are not necessary.’

[2014] UKUT 444 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539088

Commiissioner of Police for The Metropolis v The Information Commissioner, Donnie Mackenzie: UTAA 22 Oct 2014

Information Rights : Freedom of Information – Exceptions – Mr Mackenzie made a three-part request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to the Metropolitan Police for data about joint agency operations which included surveillance. The Metropolitan Police took the view that responding to the request would exceed the section 12 cost limit. Mr Mackenzie complained to the Information Commissioner, who issued a decision notice (FS50503796) concluding that the public authority had correctly applied section 12 and also was not in breach of section 16

[2014] UKUT 479 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539080

Greater Manchester Police (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2005

The complainant requested details of policies in place at GMP. The request was not responded to by GMP until the Information Commissioner’s Office made contact and a response was sent thereafter. A Decision Notice was therefore issued with regard to GMP’s failure to respond within the statutory 20 working day period.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50068389
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.533294

Flintshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested the monthly management accounts for April and December 2012. Flintshire County Council stated that it did not hold monthly management accounts for April 2012 and provided copies of the monthly management accounts for December 2012. The complainant complained that the information provided by the Council was not the information he had requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA in relation to the request for information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50511526
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.528984

Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jan 2011

The complainant made a request to the Treasury Solicitor’ Department (TSol) for information to complement and complete information requested under the Data Protection Act. In respect of one part of the request, TSol disclosed some information but withheld the balance citing the exemption in section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). TSol applied section 14(1) to the remainder of the request. The Commissioner has decided that TSol was correct to do so, but finds that it failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a) and 17(1) in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint

[2011] UKICO FS50277340
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.530174

Cranfield University (Decision Notice) FS50346729: ICO 16 Jun 2011

The complainant made two requests for information relating to the possible restructuring and reorganising of certain departments at the University; together with information relating to discussions about and proposals for any associated redundancies. The University withheld this information under sections 36, 40 and 43. The Commissioner decided that the University had correctly relied upon section 36. In addition to this it had correctly relied upon section 40 to withhold some information. However, he has also decided that sections 40 and 43 were not engaged in relation to some of the information. Therefore some of the withheld information should be disclosed. The University also failed to meet the requirements of sections 10 and 17. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50346729
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.530524

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jan 2011

The complainant requested all email communication to or from the Chief Executive of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council that mentions Everton in May and June 2008. Some relevant information was disclosed however the Council withheld one email using the exemption under section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Information Commissioner investigated and decided that the Council should have applied the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Council refused to accept that the EIR applied but stated that if it was wrong about this, it would in the alternative seek to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner did not consider that the Council provided sufficient information to justify its reliance on this exception and he has therefore ordered the Council to disclose the email within 35 days. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 5(1), 5(2), 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0313870
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.530160

Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jan 2011

The complainant requested information relating to a subject access request submitted to the Treasury Solicitor’s Office (TSol) which was not deemed to be his personal data. TSol responded citing a refusal under section 14(1) of the Act (vexatious request). The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the public authority was entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50313398
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.530176

The Applicant and East Lothian Council: SIC 10 Mar 2020

The Council was asked about a Safer Routes to School Report and a Green Travel Plan.
The Council considered the request under the EIRs and issued a fees notice to cover staff costs, payment of which was required before any information was disclosed.
The Applicant disputed the information covered by the request was environmental, and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the information was environmental (and so the Council was required to deal with the request under the EIRs).

[2020] ScotIC 045 – 2020
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.654009

The Applicant and University of Edinburgh: SIC 4 Mar 2020

The University was asked for information about racism complaints over a five year period.
The University withheld a compensation payment on the basis it was personal data which, in this case, was exempt from disclosure.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the University had complied with FOISA in responding to the request.

[2020] ScotIC 043 – 2020
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.654015

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 25 Jun 2018

The complainant has requested information about a named police investigation. City of London Police (CoLP) would neither confirm nor deny holding the information, citing the exemption at section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CoLP was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50725620
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.621217

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 14 Feb 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to fixed penalty notices issued for cycling on pavements, and the number of people charged with dangerous cycling. The Commissioner’s decision is that City of London Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50812696
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.634962

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 6 Dec 2019

The complainant requested information about Action Fraud. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of London Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50886174
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.650391

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 10 Oct 2018

The complainant made requests for information concerning the number of domestic abuse victims and the number of domestic violence disclosure requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that City of London Police (COLP) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to either request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires COLP to issue responses to the requests in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50778763
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.628495

Organisation S and Transport Scotland: SIC 4 Nov 2015

SIC Business displacement and Sustaining Dunbar – On 19 August 2014, Organisation S asked Transport Scotland for information it held about Cycling Scotland relating to business displacement and the community development trust, Sustaining Dunbar.
Transport Scotland disclosed some information and stated that it did not hold any further information.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Transport Scotland partially failed to respond to Organisation S’ request for information in accordance with the EIRs. The Commissioner accepts that Transport Scotland did not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request, but finds that it failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit.

[2015] ScotIC 167 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.556113

City and County of Swansea (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 2 Dec 2015

The complainant requested information about Lender Option Borrower Option (LOBO) contracts. The City and County of Swansea disclosed some information but withheld copies of the contracts under section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption as set out in section 43(2) of the FOIA is not engaged in relation to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. 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

[2015] UKICO FS50586305
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.559029

Chittlehamholt, Warkleigh and Satterleigh Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 9 Nov 2015

The complainant has requested to view the original version of a balance sheet, a copy of which was initially sent to him as the final version of parish council accounts for 2013/2014 in September 2014. After further correspondence the council said that the original document signed had been destroyed. The complainant then requested the date on which it was destroyed and any documents associated with this however the council failed to answer this. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council does not hold the original copy of the accounts which the complainant has asked to view. He has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 1(1)(a) as regards the second request for information, and that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in regards to both requests for information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50591514
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.556682

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50605008: ICO 17 Dec 2015

The complainant has made a number of requests which all relate to his personal dealings with the police and include his dissatisfaction with the service he has received. The City of London Police (‘COLP’) has determined that the latest five requests are ‘vexatious’. The Commissioner’s decision is that COLP has correctly relied on the exclusion at section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50605008
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.559030

Marine Management Organisation (Education (Other)): ICO 24 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested from the Marine Management Organisation (‘the MMO’) a copy of the original HRA document relating to the license application for Devonport dredging and WB dumping. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MMO has provided the complainant with the original version of the HRA document. The Commissioner requires the MMO to take no steps.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0556545
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.555111

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 4 Nov 2015

ICO The complainant requested access to the Home Office guidance to its UK Border Force officers. The Home Office 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 Home Office to respond to the request. The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50596914
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.554743

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50605017: ICO 17 Dec 2015

The complainant has requested information connected to what he has called ‘Operation Foreigner’. City of London Police (‘COLP’) would initially neither confirm nor deny holding information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5)(information relating to security bodies), 24(2)(national security), 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 31(3)(law enforcement). When asking for an internal review the complainant provided further details and COLP thereafter changed its position to neither confirm nor deny holding any information citing section 40(5)(personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5) is engaged and no steps are required.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50605017
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.559031

Banbridge High School (Education (School)): ICO 19 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested from Banbridge High School (the ‘School’) the full minutes of all its Board of Governors (BOG) meetings held since a specific date. The School refused the information on the basis that the request is vexatious in accordance with section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and that the School has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50592181
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.555875

Hambleton District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 1 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested correspondence between the council and the owner of a private airfield. The council applied Regulation 13 of the EIR to the information, and in respect of any information which was not environmental information it applied section 40(2). Both of these sections relate to the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hambleton District Council has correctly applied Regulation 13 to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 13: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588183
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.555942

Mid Suffolk District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information about the local code of conduct with effect from 31 July 2012. Mid Suffolk District Council (the Council) did not reply to his request. The Commissioner considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not receive the request from the complainant and therefore has not breached section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50571471
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.555508

Financial Ombudsman Service (Local Government (Other)): ICO 17 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to internal procedures of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that FOS has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the requested information. However, the Commissioner also finds that FOS failed to provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16. Therefore FOS has not complied with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance under section 16 FOIA, to enable the complainant to submit a refined request within the cost limit.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50558582
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.555085

Bestwater International v Mebes, Potsch: ECJ 21 Oct 2014

ECJ Preliminary reference – Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 / EC – Information society – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights – Article 3, paragraph 1 – Communication Public – Concept – Internet links providing access to copyrighted works – Using the technique of ‘transclusion’ (‘framing’)

C-348/13, [2014] EUECJ C-348/13 – CO, ECLI: EU: C: 2014: 2315
Bailii
Directive 2001/29/EC

European, Intellectual Property, Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538231

Mills v News Group Newspapers Limited: ChD 4 Jun 2001

The applicant was in a relationship with Paul McCartney, and in view of attacks on other former Beatles, she sought to restrain publication of the address of a property she had contracted to buy. The newspaper had said it would not publish unless others did, but refused to give an undertaking. The applicant obtained an injunction.
Held: The freedom of the press is vital, but also a right of privacy was developing. A duty of confidence can arise in equity independently of any dealings directly between the parties, in this case where the information may be confidential in nature. The PCC code of practice could be taken into account by the court. To justify a prior restraint, the court must be satisfied that the claimant would be likely to succeed at trial. The house had not been chosen with a view to the claimant’s security, and this was not a case in which an injunction should have been granted.

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
[2001] EWHC Ch 412
Bailii
Human Rights Act 1998 12, Press Complaints Commission, Code of Practice
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Kaye v Robertson CA 16-Mar-1990
A newspaper reporter and photographer invaded the (famouse) plaintiff’s hospital bedroom, purported to interview him and took photographs.
Held: The law of trespass provided no remedy because the plaintiff was not owner or occupier of the room . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Media, Human Rights, Equity

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.163022

Tuifly v Commission (Judgment): ECFI 29 Sep 2021

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the State aid control procedure – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the objectives of inspection, investigation and ‘audit – Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party – Outstanding public interest

T-619/18, [2021] EUECJ T-619/18
Bailii
European

European, Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.668530

Mclean and Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body: SIC 7 Oct 2014

On 6 January 2014, Mr McLean asked the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (the SPCB) for information relating to a minute of the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Regeneration Committee (LGandRC).
Where the SPCB considered Mr Mclean’s email to contain valid information requests, it responded
by stating that it did not hold the information requested. Following a review, Mr McLean remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPCB had properly responded to Mr McLean’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 214 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538109

Unison Glasgow City Branch v Glasgow City Council: SIC 8 Oct 2014

On 9 April 2014, UNISON Glasgow City Branch (Unison) asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for the legal Opinion provided by Richard Keen QC to the Council concerning the Council’s powerto implement the recommendations outlined in its Executive Committee report of 17 April 2014.
The Council responded by advising Unison that it considered the requested information to be exempt from disclosure in terms of section 36(1) of FOISA (Confidentiality). Following a review, Unison remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council was correct to withhold the information.
She did not require the Council to take any action.

[2014] ScotIC 218 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538115