Category: Information

Tom Gordon v Scottish Ministers (No 2): SIC 21 Jul 2014

SIC Modelling exercise in relation to childcare and female labour market participation – On 21 January 2014, Mr Gordon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for the results of a modelling exercise referred to in a Scottish Government paper on childcare and female labour market participation. The Ministers withheld the information under section 29(1)(a) of FOISA on the basis that it related to the formulation or development of government policy.
The Commissioner found that the Ministers were entitled to withhold the information under this exemption.

[2014] ScotIC 161 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538061

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

Picken v Scottish Ministers: SIC 20 Aug 2014

Expenditure on travel and subsistence cards – On 13 April 2013, Mr Andrew Picken asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for expenditure on travel and subsistence cards by Scottish Government ministers, excluding the First Minister, since 2007. The Ministers did not respond to this request. Following a review, the Ministers disclosed some information but withheld the names of the accommodation in which Ministers had stayed. Mr Picken remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the Ministers disclosed more information, the Commissioner required the Ministers to disclose the withheld information (the names of hotels) to Mr Picken.

[2014] ScotIC 182 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538067

Bob Doris MSP v Glasgow City Council: SIC 8 Aug 2014

SIC Correspondence concerning the closure of day centres for adults with learning disabilities – On 20 February 2013, Mr Doris asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for correspondence between Councillors and Council Officers relating to the proposal to close three day centres for adults with learning disabilities. The Council withheld the information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure in terms of section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some information to Mr Doris. The Council also told Mr Doris that it held some of the information on behalf of Councillors and this meant that it did not hold the information for the purposes of FOISA and so did not have to disclose it.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that some of the information was held by the Council on behalf of Councillors, and not for the purposes of FOISA. However, the Commissioner also found that some of the information was held by the Council in its own right, and so the Council did hold this information for the purposes of FOISA. The Commissioner accepted that the Council was entitled to withhold some of this information under the exemption in section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA but did not accept that the remainder was exempt from disclosure. She required the Council to disclose it to Mr Doris.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had identified all of the relevant information that it held which fell within the scope of Mr Doris’s request.

[2014] ScotIC 174 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538069

Hutcheon and Scottish Ministers: SIC 31 Jul 2014

Scottish Edge awards – On 21 November 2013, Mr Hutcheon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information on the development and setting up of the Scottish Edge awards. Following a review, in which the Ministers disclosed some information, Mr Hutcheon remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had been entitled to withhold some of the information. She required the Ministers to disclose the remainder to Mr Hutcheon.

[2014] ScotIC 169 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538057

Pybus and Scottish Environment Protection Agency: SIC 28 Jul 2014

On 25 July 2013, Mr Pybus asked the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for a Field Development Plan (FDP) Addendum report for unconventional gas development. The majority of the information was withheld on the basis that regulation 10(5)(e) of the EIRs applied, and the remainder was disclosed.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner agreed with SEPA that the information that had been withheld in the FDP Addendum report was excepted from disclosure under regulation 10(5)(e), which relates to the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information.

[2014] ScotIC 167 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538056

Tom Gordon and Scottish Ministers: SIC 21 Jul 2014

Modelling relating to proposals for childcare – On 21 January 2014, Mr Gordon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for the full results of any modelling done on the childcare proposals on page 194 of the White Paper, Scotland’s Future.
The Ministers withheld the information under section 29(1)(a) of FOISA on the basis that it related to the formulation or development of government policy.
The Commissioner found that the Ministers were entitled to withhold the information under this exemption.

[2014] ScotIC 160 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538060

Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others: QBD 15 Jan 2021

Claimant’s contested application to serve-out.

Jay J
[2021] EWHC 56 (QB)
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others QBD 13-Apr-2021
Claim in defamation and misuse of private information. . .
Appeal From – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others CA 21-Dec-2021
Appeal and a cross-appeal against a decision of Jay J by which he granted the claimant permission to serve five media defendants in their jurisdictions of domicile in the United States of America with proceedings for libel and limited claims for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, International, Defamation

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.657369

Gwynedd Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Gwynedd Council (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the name of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
FOI 43: Partly upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50155385
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.532527

Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others: QBD 13 Apr 2021

Claim in defamation and misuse of private information.

Mr Justice Johnson
[2021] EWHC 873 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others QBD 15-Jan-2021
Claimant’s contested application to serve-out. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others CA 21-Dec-2021
Appeal and a cross-appeal against a decision of Jay J by which he granted the claimant permission to serve five media defendants in their jurisdictions of domicile in the United States of America with proceedings for libel and limited claims for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.662149

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Jan 2011

The complainant requested information held by the ICO in relation to various trade union groups. The ICO confirmed that it held the relevant information but refused to provide it on the grounds that it was exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by virtue of section 59(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. This Decision Notice upholds the ICO’s use of section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0041 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50318415
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.530158

West Yorkshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Oct 2012

The complainant requested information relating to various crime statistics. West Yorkshire Police did not respond to the request until 58 working days after receiving it. The complainant requested that a decision notice be issued by the Information Commissioner recording the delay. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police has breached section 10(1) but no further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50457088
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.529966

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested a range of information relating to fire training provided by West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service. The public authority provided some of the requested information, confirmed some information was not held and withheld some information under the exemption where disclosure would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly confirmed that information relating to gross profits derived from the provision of fire training is not held. In relation to the list of customers in receipt of fire training, the Commissioner has decided that the public authority has incorrectly applied the commercial interests exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50446509
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.529965

Capital for Enterprise Ltd (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2011

The complainant made a request to Capital for Enterprise Limited (CfEL) for information relating to Enterprise Capital Funds (ECFs). CfEL refused to provide this information to the complainant as it stated it was exempt from disclosure under section 41 and section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner considers that the section 43(2) exemption was correctly engaged in this case. The Commissioner did not therefore go on to consider CfEL’s application of section 41.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50319703
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.530516

Halton Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested from Halton Borough Council (‘the Council’) research data about the availability of housing. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50842950
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.643471

The Applicant and Perth and Kinross Council: SIC 11 Mar 2020

The Council was asked about a meeting it held with representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Council withheld information on the grounds that it was either legal advice or that its disclosure would dissuade the free and frank exchange of views for deliberation.
During the investigation, the Council disclosed further information to the Applicant, but it continued to withhold some information for the reasons it had previously cited.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had correctly applied exemptions to the withheld information, but he also found that the Council failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOISA by initially withholding information from the Applicant that it later disclosed.

[2020] ScotIC 046 – 2020
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.654012

The Applicant and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 11 Mar 2020

The Council was asked for correspondence regarding four named individuals. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information. The Commissioner investigated and found that Council was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the information.

[2020] ScotIC 047 – 2020
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.654013

North Tyneside Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Sep 2020

The complainant has requested recorded information from North Tyneside Council which concerns the completed Links Road Project at Whitley Bay. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Tyneside Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA by providing the complainant with the information it holds relevant to his request. She has also decided that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with its response within twenty working days.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50885595
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.653938

Bromley London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 17 Dec 2015

The complainant requested various information regarding inspections carried out on a specified property by inspectors employed by the London Borough of Bromley. The London Borough of Bromley disclosed some of the requested information promptly but failed to disclose all of it within 20 working days in accordance with sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the London Borough of Bromley to take any steps.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50602328
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.559027

Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 1 Dec 2015

The complainant has requested copies of any submissions made by Avon and Somerset Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’) to a Police Medical Appeal Boards review conducted by the College of Policing. The Constabulary stated that it did not hold any information which fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time of the request the Constabulary did hold information which fell within the scope of the request. It therefore failed to comply with the requirements of section 1(1) in respect of that information. Since the complainant already has a copy of the information in question, the Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to disclose a copy. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Constabulary does not hold any further, relevant information.
FOI 1: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50591753
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.559025

Cheshire East Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 14 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested the name of the person who requested a property search on a specific address. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Cheshire East Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0587206
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.555904

Barrow-In-Furness Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 28 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint about parking enforcement. Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for adverse affect to the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council failed to provide information within the statutory time limit and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Failed to issue a proper refusal notice and breached regulations 14(1), 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR. Correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold legal advice. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Upheld EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 14(1): Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 14(3): Upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0593795
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.555878

Taunton Deane Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 18 Aug 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for an independent viability assessment report produced in relation to two planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information redacted from the viability assessment report in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. No steps required.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0573719
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.555756

Queens University Belfast (Education (University)): ICO 28 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the University’s investment funds. The University disclosed some of the requested information, however it refused to disclose the remainder (the withheld information), citing section 43(2) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption as set out in section 43(2) of FOIA is not engaged in relation to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the University to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. The University 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 (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 43: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50580997
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.555845

Thames Valley Police (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Aug 2006

The complainant asked Thames Valley Police for the numbers of sex offender orders applied for and granted since April 2003, for details of the applications for orders to the courts and for the reason why some hearings had been moved from the Banbury Area. The requests was initially refused on the basis of the exemptions provided by section 31 (law enforcement), section 38 (health and safety) and section 40 (personal information.) The TVP also initially misunderstood the request to be for orders granted rather than orders applied for. As a result of the Commissioner’s intervention, the TVP supplied information as to the number of order applied for and granted on a Force-area basis. However, the Commissioner agreed that, insofar as the requested information would allow the identification of particular offenders, it was exempt by virtue of the exemptions cited. Section 31 and 38 are subject to the public interest test and the Commissioner also agreed that the public interest required the maintenance of these exemptions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50064584
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.533539

North Yorkshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information related to police injury awards, which the public authority withheld under sections 21 and 40. The Commissioner has found that section 21 was applied correctly in that the information in question is indeed available elsewhere. However, section 40 has not been applied correctly in that the disclosure of the personal data in question would not contravene the data protection principles. The public authority is therefore required to disclose the information withheld under section 40 within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50086060
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.533521

Brayford Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jul 2006

The complainant requested copies of the deeds and correspondence related to the purchase of an area of land by the council. As a result of previous relations between the council and the complainant the council had decided to deal with the complainant via their solicitor. The request was therefore passed on to the solicitors, who failed to deal with it appropriately, and then frustrated attempts by the Commissioner to resolve the complaint informally. The Commissioner has now issued a decision notice requiring the council to respond to the request within 30 days of its service.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50091488
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.533481

Commission for Social Care Inspection (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Aug 2006

The complainant requested correspondence relating to a care home. The CSCI did not provide a response to the request. After contact with the Commissioner a response was sent stating that not all the requested information is held. The Commissioner is satisfied that the CSCI has now responded fully to the request, but in the process they did not comply with all the statutory requirements of sections 1 and 10.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50085712
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.533526

Transport for London (Decision Notice): ICO 5 May 2006

The complainant requested access to files on the prosecutions brought for fare dodging on London buses. The information was withheld under the exemptions provided by section 40(2) – personal information about third parties, and section 21 – information accessible to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner found that the information constituted sensitive personal data about third parties and that to disclose the information would contravene the first data protection principle. Therefore, all the information that had been withheld was exempt information. However, in relation to the application of section 21, Transport for London initially argued that, as some of the information had been discussed in open court, it would be accessible via the relevant court record. However, the Commissioner found that the applicant would not easily be able to identify the court records that interested him and, even if he could, he would not necessarily be granted access to those records.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50075171
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.533440

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Mar 2014

The complainant has requested the number of complaints about homophobic material on the BBC Messageboards. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50525019
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.527535

Sutton London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Oct 2012

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Sutton on the Common Purpose training undertaken by its employees. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by not responding to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld
Recent local discussions have led me to collect together references for the requirements for road markings’

[2012] UKICO FS50445085
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.529955

West Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested a range of information relating to services such as the servicing of fire protection systems and training provided by West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service. The public authority provided some of the requested information, confirmed some information was not held and withheld some information under the exemption where disclosure would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly confirmed that information relating to gross profits is not held but that the council have incorrectly applied the exemption where disclosure would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests to the amended request for the overall costs / revenue ratio. The Commissioner has also decided that the public authority has incorrectly applied the commercial interests exemption to the list of customers in receipt of services such as the servicing of fire protection systems and training. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information held from which the pricing structure is derived in relation to the overall costs / revenue ratio requested at point 2 and disclose the information requested at point 5. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0231 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50450135
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.529964

Isle of Wight Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Jan 2011

The complainant asked the Council to clarify under what authority it had rejected communications sent by residents of the Isle of Wight and for a statement of the legislation upon which it had based its decision to reject such communications. The Council stated that it had not taken an active decision to reject such correspondence and stated that it did not therefore hold information of the type requested. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0033 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50314033
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.530159

Transport for London (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested information about monitoring data of racial groupings. Transport for London (TfL) sought clarification from the complainant before it could respond to the request which was subsequently provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt of the clarification of the request. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50458229
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.529958

Transport for London (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Feb 2007

The complainant requested details of compensation payments made to residents of a specific road under the Land Compensation Act following the building of the A12 Hackney M11 Link Road. The public authority confirmed to the complainant the number of compensation offers that had been accepted by residents but refused to disclose details of the size of compensation payments made to each resident on the basis of the exemptions contained at section 40 and 43. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the public authority’s application of 40(2) to withhold the information. As the Commissioner is satisfied that the section 40(2) has been applied correctly, he has not considered the public authority’s decision to apply section 43.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50090631
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.532854

Law Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Dec 2013

The complainant requested from the Law Commission copies of a Statutory Instrument and four named Acts of Parliament. The Law Commission refused the information request relying on the section 21(1) FOIA exemption. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Law Commission complied with the requirements of FOIA and does not need to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50508472
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.528998

Royal Mail (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Jan 2011

The complainant made a request to Royal Mail Group PLC under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information regarding how much undeliverable mail was sent for disposal by the National Returns Centre in each financial year from 2004/2005 to 2009/2010. The Royal Mail confirmed that it held part of the requested information but stated that some of this information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that section 43(2) is not engaged and that the information requested should be disclosed. As a consequence Royal Mail breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1). However, the Commissioner finds that, on the balance of probabilities, Royal Mail does not hold information relating to part of the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50318446
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.530171

Barnet London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested details of the job titles of officers involved in the evaluating of proposals for the New Support and Customer Services Organisation. The London Borough of Barnet refused the request, withholding the information under the commercial interests exemption. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the council also applied the exemption for personal information to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has wrongly applied the commercial interests exemption and that it has partially misapplied the exemption for personal information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the job titles of the senior officers and, where more than one person holds the job title, the junior officers identified by the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50454834
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.529972

Unison and North Lanarkshire Council: SIC 20 Nov 2009

Unison requested from North Lanarkshire Council (the Council), information relating to the Council’s Managing Attendance Policy. The Council responded by stating that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the cost limit set for the purposes of section 12(1) of FOISA. Unison was not persuaded by the Council’s cost estimates and consequently requested a review. Following this review, Unison remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the projected cost of compliance would exceed the limit of pounds 600 set for the purposes of section 12(1). He therefore found that the Council had dealt with Unison’s request in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2009] ScotIC 135 – 2009
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.434084

Information Commissioner v Islington London Borough Council: Admn 24 May 2002

The commissioner appealed a dismissal of her case against a council, complaining that the council knowingly or recklessly used personal data for the collection of council tax, for which registration had expired.
Held: It was not necessary to show that the individual officer making use of the data had been aware of the breach. The council itself was the legal person using the data. The knowledge and actions of the directing minds of a corporate body must be taken together with the actions of those to whom administrative functions were delegated. To hold otherwise would make it impossible for any large organisation to be prosecuted under the Act.

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mrs Justice Hallett
Times 05-Jun-2002, Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 1036 (Admin)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1984 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Data Protection Registrar v Amnesty International (British Section) Admn 8-Nov-1994
The defendants had been charged with recklessly holding and then disclosing information about named individuals. It had exchanged a list of potential addressee’s for use in mailing lists with another charity.
Held: Recklessness is defined by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Crime

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.172182

The Applicant and Scottish Water: SIC 11 Mar 2020

Scottish Water was asked for water supply and drainage routes and locations for specified premises. Scottish Water disclosed some information for adjacent premises, which was out of scope.
Following investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that Scottish Water had carried out adequate searches, but decided that its advice in its correspondence with the Applicant was misleading.

[2020] ScotIC 048 – 2020
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.654014

University of Sussex (Education (University)): ICO 9 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested from the University of Sussex (the ‘University’) details of the cost that it spent on pursuing a particular Information Rights Tribunal case and for a copy of the correspondence received from its contractor. The University 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 University has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50581902
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.555861

Guildford Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Sep 2020

The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed bridge over a railway line to replace a level crossing. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(d) and Regulation 12(5)(e) applies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) to some the cost elements of the withheld information but was not correct to apply it to the withheld information as a whole. She has also decided that the council was not correct to rely upon Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the information. She has also decided that the council failed to comply with the time requirements for responding to requests and to requests for the decision to be reconsidered set out in Regulations 5(2) and 11(4). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose all of the withheld information to the complainant other than the options costings information, and the information included within paragraphs 9.1.9 – 9.1.12 of the main report. The total estimates for each road bridge option considered should however be disclosed.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint partly upheld

[2020] UKICO fer0814799
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.653937

South Downs National Park Authority (Local Government (Other)): ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has made a request to the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) for a copy of the legal advice produced in connection with the upgrade of the Meon Valley Trail. The SDNPA considered that this information engaged the ‘course of justice’ (regulation 12(5)(b)) exception to disclosure in the EIR and argued that the balance of the public interest favoured withholding the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR does apply and that in all the circumstances the public interest in favour of maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. He does not therefore require any steps to be taken by the SDNPA as a result of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586791
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.555855

Leicestershire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 23 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested recorded information relating to complaints made about Cotes Road, Barrow upon Soar, Leicestershire. The complainant specifically requires the dates the road was inspected and the dates when work was carried out. Leicestershire County Council provided information which is relevant to the majority of the complainant’s request, but refused to provide details of the complaints it had received and relevant dates in reliance of Regulations 12(4)(e) and 12 (5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 12(5)(b) is not engaged. He finds that Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure of the dates which Leicestershire County Council has withheld. The Commissioner found that some of the redacted information constitutes the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner agrees that the Council would be entitled to withhold this in reliance on Regulation 13. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a new copy of EIR 5169 ‘Street History Report’. This should be unredacted except where the information consists of the names of persons who have complained about, or raised concerns about, the state of Cotes Road and also details of their complaints/concerns where that information would identify the third parties. The Council should ensure that appropriate third party personal data is withheld.
EIR 12(4)(e): Partly upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Upheld EIR 13: Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50547845
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.555103

City of London Corporation (Local Government (Other)): ICO 10 Nov 2015

The complainant has made a series of requests to the City of London Corporation (CoL). The CoL refused all of the requests on the basis they were vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that section 14(1) was properly applied and therefore the CoL is not required to take any steps as a result of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50592211
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.556683

Croydon London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 1 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (‘the Council’) relating to whether an employee at the Council is currently under an internal or external investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587848
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.555912

Cubells v Information Commissioner (The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009): FTTGRC 17 Jul 2014

Application to have claim struck out by consent.

[2014] UKFTT 2014 – 0066 (GRC)
Bailii
The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
Citing:
See Also – Cubells, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission CA 15-Oct-2012
The claimant’s mother had died in hospital. The claimant said that she had died as a result of failures by doctors, and had asked the coroner and police to investigate his allegation that she had been deliberately harmed to cover up missed . .
See Also – Cubells v Information Commissioner FTTGRC 2-Aug-2013
Dismissed : Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Appeal dismissed . .
See Also – Cubells v Information Commissioner FTTGRC 2-Dec-2013
FTTG FOIA s.40 (5) (b) (I) Data Protection Act, 1998 (‘the DPA’) Schedule 1, Part 1 Requests for personal data. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535681

Queen Mary University of London (Education): ICO 4 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested Queen Mary University of London (the University) to disclose copies of weekly associated dean meetings from April 2020 to the date of her request and, also, data relating to medical school student placements, and correspondence with a named individual. The University refused to disclose the meeting minutes, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs) and refused to comply with the remainder of the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA in this case. With regards to section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA, the Commissioner is satisfied that this exemption is engaged and the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 36(2)(c): Complaint not upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-78251
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.669663

Welsh Government (Central Government): ICO 5 Oct 2021

The complainant requested various information in respect of a report produced by the Wales Animal Health and Welfare Framework Group and published in March 2020 concerning a review of the Animal Welfare (Dog Breeding) (Wales) Regulations 2014. The Welsh Government provided some information but refused to provide information in respect of vets on the basis of section 40(2) (third party personal information) of the FOIA. It further stated that any additional information falling within the scope of the request was not held by the Welsh Government but by a Task and Finish Group. Following the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government conceded that this information was held on its behalf, and whilst it provided redacted copies of some additional information it continued to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA, and also cited section 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA, to refuse the names of the veterinary practices where the vets who contributed to the research were employed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has now complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA, that it was entitled to rely on both section 40(2) and section 38(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA. As she has concluded that section 38 is engaged, she has not gone on to consider the Welsh Government’s reliance on section 43 of the FOIA. Due to the late disclosure of some relevant information, the Commissioner has also recorded a breach of section 10(1) of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 38: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-55414
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.669681

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Dec 2009

The complainant made an information request to the British Broadcasting Corporation (the ‘BBC’) for all documents relating to It’s A Knockout over the years that the programme ran and It’s A Royal Knockout. The BBC voluntarily provided part of this information but refused to provide access to the remainder stating that it was outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held for the purpose of journalism, art and literature. Therefore the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50282449
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.532374

Vale of Glamorgan Council (Local Government): ICO 7 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information regarding the resurfacing of a highway. The Commissioner’s decision is that Vale of Glamorgan Council (‘the Council’) has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request. The Council 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.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-125468
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.669679

Innes v Information Commissioner and Another: CA 31 Jul 2014

Appeal against a decision upholding the decision of the First Tier Tribunal which upheld a decision of the Information Commissioner, the First Respondent rejecting a complaint brought by the Appellant. It arises out of a series of requests made by Mr Innes in the course of 2009 and 2010 under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to Buckinghamshire County Council, the Second Respondent, about the operation of the 11+ exam in the county.

Longmore, Underhill LJJ, Sir David Keene
[2014] EWCA Civ 1086, [2014] WLR(D) 358
Bailii, WLRD
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information, Education

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535518

Exeter City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Aug 2006

The complainant requested any information held by the council on the disposal or sale of a piece of land to the Fire Service. The council withheld the information on the basis that section 43 applied (commercial interests exemption). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information should be disclosed as there would be no prejudice to disclose it at this time. The Commissioner also decided that even if prejudice was likely the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed that of maintaining the exemption in this instance, and therefore the council to disclose the requested information to the complainant within 30 days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50080412
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.533529

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jan 2011

The complainant requested a number of financial reports concerning grant aid provided by ACPO to the Home Office. The complainant did not receive a substantive response within the statutory time frame and therefore contacted the public authority to request an internal review. The public authority completed the internal review acknowledging the delay in responding and confirmed information was held. The complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the handling of his request. During the course of the investigation the public authority responded providing the information to the complainant. The Commissioner finds the public authority to have breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the Act. He requires no further steps to be taken by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50324118
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.530155