Category: Information

Smith of Pentland Homeowners Association and Dundee City Council: SIC 28 Feb 2006

Information relating to re-roofing works at Tullideph Road, Dundee – information withheld under section 33(1)(b) – substantial prejudice to commercial interests – section 33(1)(a) – trade secrets – section 36(2) – disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence – section 17 – information not held – section 30(c) – substantial prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 034 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.434519

Wickham and Moray Council: SIC 1 Feb 2006

Request for planning documents – information held in authority’s publication scheme – charge levied for supply of information – whether section 25(1) applied – failure to respond to request for review in accordance with section 21(1)

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 015 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.434520

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 16 Jul 2020

The complainant has requested the correspondence sent between two DWP employees. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the Act to refuse to comply with the requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take issue a fresh response which does not rely on section 14(1). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50846703

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.653732

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jan 2009

The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (the CPS) relating to the contents of a defence bundle of documents in R v Vernon Attwell, John Donaldson and Thomas Style. The CPS confirmed that it held the information and cited the exemptions of sections 30, 40(2) and 41 as its reason for withholding the entire bundle. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant confined his request to a single item, item 10, within the defence bundle. The CPS confirmed in its internal review that item 10 is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has determined that the CPS correctly applied section 40(2) of the Act. He considers that a disclosure of this information would be unfair to identifiable individuals and this would contravene the first data protection principle. The Commissioner finds that the CPS breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to issue a Refusal Notice within the time for compliance with section 1(1). It also breached section 17(1)(b) of the Act by failing to specify that section 40(2) applied by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). The Commissioner does not uphold the complaint and requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0010 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50142499

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.531915

Ewen of The Evening Express and Chief Constable of Grampian Police: SIC 23 Feb 2006

Request for information about the number of drivers caught speeding at each fixed camera location in Grampian in 2004/05 – withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(a)and (b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) – law enforcement – section 39(1) of FOISA – health and safety

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 030 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.434517

S and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde: SIC 22 May 2007

Request for a copy of the health records of Mr S’s deceased mother – failure to identify and locate records – section 38(1)(d) (personal information) applied – Commissioner concluded the records should not be considered to be held for the purposes of FOISA

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 068 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.434345

TB, Regina (on the Application of) v The Combined Court at Stafford: Admn 4 Jul 2006

The claimant was the child complainant in an allegation of sexual assault. The defendant requested her medical records, and she now complained that she had been unfairly pressured into releasing them.
Held: The confidentiality of a patient’s medical records belongs to the patient, and the duty of confidence owed by a medical professional to a competent young person is a high one which should not be overridden except for a very powerful reason. The Health Authority were not in a position to make the decision for the claimant. The claimant should have been given notice and opportunity to obtain advice and make representations.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1645 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Maidstone Crown Court, ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council QBD 30-Apr-1999
The High Court may review, on an application made by a properly interested party, a decision made by a Crown Court under the Act. Although this related to a trial on indictment, the Crown Court judge had made an order without jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Axon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another Admn 23-Jan-2006
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful.
Cited – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – W v United Kingdom ECHR 1987
A local authority must, in reaching decisions on children in care, take account of the views and interests of the natural parents, which called for a degree of protection. In the context of care proceedings, public authorities may not be required to . .
Cited – G and others v Local Authority X; Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) FD 24-Mar-2003
‘procedural fairness is something mandated not merely by Article 6, but also by Article 8.’ . .
Cited – Z v Finland ECHR 25-Feb-1997
A defendant had appealed against his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.243047

Charity Commission (Local Government): ICO 5 Jun 2019

Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested communications relating to complaints made to the Charity Commission about a particular charity. The Charity Commission refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(f) and (g) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50798378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.638738

Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (Other): ICO 11 Jul 2019

The complainant has requested the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (CCNI) to disclose any communication between the CCNI and the Northern Ireland Public Service Ombudsman (NIPSO) in relation to the publication or withholding of NIPSO’s investigation report on a named individual and the CCNI. Initially, CCNI refused to confirm or deny whether it held any recorded information citing section 44(2) of the FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation the application of section 44(2) was withdrawn and CCNI confirmed that it now wished to rely on section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CCNI is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50781777

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.643175

Charity Commission (Local Government (Other)): ICO 22 Feb 2017

The complainant has requested information from the Charity Commission on the split of the Global Warming Policy Foundation into charitable and trading arms. The Charity Commission disclosed some information but relied on the exemptions at section 31, 40, 41 and 42 of the FOIA to withhold other information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which it has been applied; similarly sections 41 and 40(2) can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which they have been applied. Section 42 has been correctly applied to withhold all information it has been applied to. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which is not protected by any of the exemptions cited as identified in the confidential annex which has been provided to the Charity Commission.
FOI 31: Partly upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 41: Upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50623442

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.579840

Charity Commission (Local Government (Other)): ICO 12 Jan 2017

The complainant has requested communications relating to a complaint he made to the Charity Commission about a particular charity. The Charity Commission refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50631941

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.579746

Charity Commission (Local Government): ICO 17 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to the distribution of funds following the dissolution of a charity. The Charity Commission relied on the exemption at section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) to withhold the information. The Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’s’) decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied the exemption and she does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50672594

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.602256

Charity Commission (Local Government (Other)): ICO 22 Aug 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he made to the Charity Commission about a particular charity. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50669628

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.593925

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jun 2010

The CPS was asked to provide information about its civil recovery functions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It refused, citing the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner concluded that whilst section 35(1)(a) was engaged by the information, the public interest did not support withholding the information and ordered its disclosure. He also decided that the CPS breached procedural requirements of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50254993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.531489

Surrey Police (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2010

The complainant requested the prosecution thresholds for speeding vehicles in Surrey as compared to ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) guidelines. Surrey Police confirmed it holds the requested information but refused to provide it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 31 (law enforcement) and 38 (health and safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. As a result of this finding, he has not considered the exemption in section 38. The Commissioner found procedural breaches in the handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50284940

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.531804

Josef Probst v Mr.Nexnet Gmbh: ECJ 22 Nov 2012

ECJ Electronic communications – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 6(2) and (5) – Processing of personal data – Traffic data necessary for billing and debt collection – Debt collection by a third company – Persons acting under the authority of the providers of public communications networks and electronic communications services

Judges:

K. Lenaerts

Citations:

C-119/12, [2012] EUECJ C-119/12

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2002/58/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.465997

Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd: CA 20 Dec 2011

The Union complained that the defendant operators of a web-site had permitted the sale of its tickets at far above their face value. The Court considerer whether it was proper to make a Norwich Pharmacal order which would entail the disclosure of personal data contrary to the Data Protection Directive and the 1998 Act.
Held: It would generally be proportionate to make an order revealing the identity of arguable wrongdoers. Longmore LJ said that there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of data which reveal such arguable wrongs. The respondent’s own conditions of business pointed out to their customers that their may be circumstances in which their personal data will be passed on to others. The requirement of disclosure of a limited amount of personal data was proportionate because there was no other way in which arguable wrongdoing could be exposed: ‘In this case, as in many other Norwich Pharmacal cases, necessity and proportionality may go hand in hand’.

Judges:

Longmore, Patten, Rafferty LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1585

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection 1998 Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd QBD 30-Mar-2011
The claimant objected to the resale through the defendant of tickets to matches held at the Twickenham Stadium. The tickets contained terms disallowing resales at prices over the face value. They sought orders for the disclosure of the names of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Patel v Unite The Union QBD 27-Jan-2012
The claimant, wanting to bring defamation proceedings in respect of postings on the defendant’s internet forum, sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters. The defendants said that the forum having been taken down, they were now . .
Appeal from – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Information, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450115

Anderson and Shetland Islands Council: SIC 22 May 2007

Information request for copy of all agreements between Shetland Islands Council and Scottish Water relating to the provision of drainage and sewage in the Shetland Islands and all transfers of land between Shetland Islands Council and Scottish Water in East Voe, Shetland.

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 076 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.434343

Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc: ChD 23 Feb 2005

The respondent declined to produce information held about the claimant saying that it was not held within a filing system so as to bring it within the Act.
Held: ‘the legislature has taken a policy decision not to bring unstructured files within the general scope of the Directive. ‘

Judges:

Laddie, The Hon Mr Justice Laddie

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 246 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The claimant doctor had sought assistance from the defendant, and having been refused it had sought disclosure of its records about him. He had been refused access under the 1998 Act, and now sought access under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Banking

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.223168

Chilton Town Council (Local Government): ICO 16 Jul 2020

The complainant has requested information from Chilton Town Council (‘the council’) in relation to its allowances over a two-year period. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50907555

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.653716

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Health (Other)) FS50550588: ICO 3 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information about an investigation into two products: urine sample collection devices. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) disclosed some information and withheld other information that it said was exempt under section 40 (personal data), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly applied section 40, section 41 and section 44(1)(a) to the request and he does not require it to take any further steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 41: Not upheld FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50550588

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.555113

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Health (Other)): ICO 22 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested all records associated with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) Reference Number device CA014885. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) of the FOIA to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50697988

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.602425

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Health (Other)) FS50551392: ICO 3 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information about a historical complaint concerning a urine sample collection device. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) disclosed some information and withheld other information that it said was exempt under section 40(2) (personal data) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly applied section 40(2) and section 44(1)(a) to the request and he does not require it to take any further steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50551392

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.555114

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Health (Other)): ICO 3 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested a range of information taken from voluntary reports of adverse incidents involving medical devices. The MHRA agreed to disclose some information but considered that model, manufacturer, catalogue, serial and batch numbers, and date of incidences of adverse incidents was exempt on the basis of section 41, 43 and 44 of the FOIA. In addition to this, the MHRA also considered that section 43 applied to the request for reference numbers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly withheld the information request at parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the request on the basis of section 44. However, she does not consider that the MHRA has sufficiently demonstrated that section 43 is engaged in relation to the information requested at part 16 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at part 16 of the request – MHRA reference numbers for all voluntary reports of adverse incidents received since 1 April 2003.
FOI 43: Upheld FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50616856

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.573001

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Nov 2005

On 28/03/05 the complainant submitted a request to the CPS, in 23 parts, concerning a particular type of speed camera. The complainant made a further request for information on 20/04/05. The CPS did not respond until 03/10/05, outside of the statutory time limit, when it provided a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Given that this response has been given, the Information Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50075959

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.533286

Surrey Police (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Jul 2007

The complainant requested CCTV footage relating to the Amanda Dowler (‘Milly Dowler’) murder in 2002 from Surrey Police (the ‘public authority’). Having refined his request this was reduced specifically to 5 minutes of footage taken from the ‘Birdseye CCTV’ camera on the Unilever Building on Station Avenue from 4.05pm to 4.10pm on the day that Milly Dowler went missing. This is believed to cover the last time Milly Dowler was seen. The public authority refused to provide this information citing that the information is exempt under section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities). The Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority appropriately cited the section 30 exemption and that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Therefore this complaint is not upheld.
FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50086301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.533013

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Sep 2005

The complainant requested information concerning operational details of speed cameras and alleged that the CPS failed to respond to this request. After investigation, the Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not responded to in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act. The Decision Notice identified steps, requiring the CPS to provide a proper response to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50071320

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.533254

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information relating to an allegation of a criminal offence made by him some years previously. The Commissioner’s decision was that, by informing the complainant that the information requested was not held by it because it was never created, the public authority complied with the requirements of the Act. Although the Commissioner additionally found that the public authority wrongly claimed that the request was repeated this did not lead to a contravention of the Act since a proper response was given to the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50088042

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.533490

Surrey Police (Decision Notice): ICO 24 May 2010

The complainant requested information on anthrax or white powder hoaxes utilising the postal system in 2003. Surrey Police neither confirmed nor denied that this information was held citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 27(4) (international relations), 30(3) criminal investigations, 31(1) (law enforcement) and 38(2) public safety. It upheld this decision at the internal review stage, additionally citing section 40(5). The Commissioner concludes that none of the exemptions ultimately relied upon are engaged for NCND purposes. The public authority is required to provide to the complainant confirmation or denial of whether information falling within the scope of the request is held. Any information that is held should either be disclosed to the complainant or the public authority should issue a refusal notice valid for the purposes of section 17(1). The Commissioner also found procedural breaches.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50246819

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.531463

Surrey Police (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Feb 2013

The complainant has requested information from Surrey Police. Surrey Police refused to comply with the request, arguing that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police correctly categorised this request as vexatious, therefore it was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50459595

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.528015

Surrey Police (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2009

The complainant requested information recording the advice received by the public authority from the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding a disagreement between the public authority and another police force about the approach adopted by the public authority when investigating deaths at the Deepcut Army Barracks. The public authority refused the request, citing the exemptions provided by sections 30(1)(a)(i) (information relating to investigations) and 36(2)(b)(i) (inhibition to the provision of free and frank advice). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority also cited section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner finds that the exemptions provided by sections 30(1)(a)(i) and 40(2) are not engaged and that section 36(2)(b)(i) is engaged, but that the public interest in maintenance of the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. In failing to disclose the information on the basis of exemptions that the Commissioner has not upheld, the public authority did not comply with the requirements of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1). The public authority also failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in failing to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request within 20 working days of receipt, and section 17(1) in failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory time limit. The public authority is required to disclose the information in question. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0081 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50183238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.532147

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Sep 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to planning application 11/00534/FUL. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council provided some information but refused the remainder of the request under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, stating that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Epsom and Ewell Borough Council failed to conduct an internal review within the time limit and breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR but that it correctly confirmed that some of the information was not held, complying with regulation 5(1) and regulation 12(4).The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50489781

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.528657

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested information relating to abuse allegedly committed by Cyril Smith, former MP for Rochdale against children. The Crown Prosecution Service refused to provide this citing section 30 (investigations information) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review and also introduced reliance on section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS is entitled to rely on section 30(1) and section 40(2) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50508647

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.527319

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Aug 2009

The complainant engaged in a lengthy correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) from February 2005 to September 2007 as part of a complaint he was pursuing. The correspondence contained a large number of requests, made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), to which the CPS provided a variety of responses. The complainant continued to correspond with the CPS which then refused to answer his requests, declaring them vexatious and/or repeated under section 14(1) and section 14(2) of the Act. The complainant then made a further series of requests for information, and the CPS restated its position that his requests were vexatious. The Commissioner finds that some of the requests made by the complainant fall outside the scope of the Act and, in those cases where the Act applies, that the CPS is correct in its application of section 14(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50194694

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.532125

Sinclair v Information Commissioner, Department of Energy and Climate Change: FTTGRC 8 Nov 2011

FTTGC Environmental Information Regulations – disclosure of information – exception for internal communications – regulation 12(4)(e) – exception where adverse effect on international relations – regulation 12(5)(a) – public interest balance

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2011 – 0052 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Environment

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449720

Asociacion Nacional De Establecimientos Financieros De Credito v Administracion Del Estado: ECJ 24 Nov 2011

ECJ (Approximation Of Laws – Processing Personal Data) Processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Article 7(f) – Direct effect

Judges:

K. Lenaerts

Citations:

C-469/10, [2011] EUECJ C-469/10

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Asociacion Nacional De Establecimientos Financieros De Credito v Administracion Del Estado ECJ 24-Nov-2011
ECJ (Approximation Of Laws – Processing Personal Data) Processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Article 7(f) – Direct effect . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449349

Al Hasan, Expressplans.Com and East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 22 May 2007

24 requests for information relating to East Dunbartonshire Council’s building control function submitted via a questionnaire – application made in relation to the handling of 10 of those requests – Section 12(1) (Excessive cost of compliance)

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 071 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.434341

HML PM Ltd v Canary Riverside Estate Management Ltd and Another: QBD 17 Dec 2019

Application for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from making use of what is said to be confidential information and in which (to some extent at least) it is said that the Claimant enjoys legal professional privilege.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3496 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.645981

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jul 2009

The complainant requested the number of prosecutions against members of the police force and the members of the legal profession over a ten year period and how many of those individuals had been able to retire on a full pension. The public authority informed the complainant that section 12 applied to this information as it would be required to check through all its manual files. The Commissioner has investigated the issue and has determined that the public authority was correct to rely on section 12 in this instance. However the Commissioner has found a breach of section 16(1) as his view is that the public authority failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance in relation to narrowing down the request. He has also found a breach of section 10(1) for failing to confirm that relevant information was held within the time for statutory compliance and a breach of section 17(5) for the public authority failing to issue a section 12 notice within the statutory timescales. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken in this case. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50212832

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.532082

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jul 2011

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Financial Services Authority (the public authority) to request copies of three reports it had produced in relation to Split Capital Investment Trusts. The public authority refused the request by relying on the exemptions; section 21 (Information accessible by other means); section 40 (Personal information), section 43 (Commercial interests) and section 44 (Prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that all of the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the Act by virtue of the statutory prohibition in section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50377785

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.530650

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Mar 2007

The complainants made a request for information relating to alleged offences committed by members of the public on a footpath which bisects the complainants’ land. The CPS responded by providing some material, but not the instructions given to Counsel or Counsel’s advice, citing the legal professional privilege exemption contained in section 42 as the reason for refusing this aspect of the request. The complainants submitted that release of the advice and instructions was in the public interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that the use of the section 42 exemption is upheld in this matter, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in this instance. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50130128

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.532874

South Wales Police (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested whether it is a matter of South Wales Police’s written procedural policy not to prosecute for the crime of perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury. South Wales Police (SWP) confirmed that it holds no recorded information relevant to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that SWP has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50454594

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.529952

Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Jul 2011

ICO The complainant requested, from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), copies of emails, faxes or letters to or from Dorset Police regarding his efforts to get them to act on his informing them about a matter, together with all internal IPO memos, letters or emails which dealt with him. The IPO refused to disclose the information citing the exemptions in sections 21 (information accessible by other means) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). In relation to some of the requested information it said that, if it were held, section 40(1) (personal information) would apply. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50372742

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.530661

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jun 2009

The complainant made a three part request; for information about cases pre August 2004 where the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ was used against a charge of assault by a parent or guardian on a child, for similar cases post August 2004 and for details of what the complainant perceived to be a change in the policy of the public authority towards the reasonable chastisement defence. The Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to comply with the first part of the request in that it did not accurately confirm what information it held at the time of the refusal, but has since remedied this and disclosed all information it holds falling within the scope of the request. In regard to the second part of the request, the Commissioner finds that the public authority incorrectly cited section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) and requires it to disclose the information falling within the scope of this part of the request. In connection with the third part of the request, the Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) is engaged in relation to all but one document which was already in the public domain at the time of the request, but that the public interest in maintenance of this exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The public authority is also required to disclose the information falling within the scope of this part of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(b) through its handling of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0077 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50121838

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.532049

Lewisham London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jul 2011

ICO The complainant asked the Council to release information relating to the organisations which were awarded the Nursing, Care and Befriending (Preferred Provider Framework) contracts. The Council responded releasing some of the requested information to the complainant. The Council informed the complainant that it considered the pricing structure and Method Statement submitted by each organisation and the score allocated to each organisation during the tender evaluation process to be exempt from disclosure under sections 41(1) and 43(2) of the Act. As the complainant remained dissatisfied, he approached the Commissioner. During the Commissioner’s investigation the complainant decided to withdraw his complaint concerning the non disclosure of the pricing structure submitted by each organisation. The Commissioner has considered the application of sections 41(1) and 43(2) of the Act to the remaining information. He has concluded that neither of the exemptions cited is engaged in this case. He has therefore ordered the Council to release the remaining information to the complainant within 35 days of the Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50350474

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.530665

NHS Cambridgeshire (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Aug 2011

ICO On 27 September 2009, the complainant requested that NHS Cambridgeshire should provide her with all the information that it held in relation to her deceased mother. NHS Cambridgeshire . . informed the complainant that it held a care file which was exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. At that time Cambridgeshire Community Services was a provider arm of NHS Cambridgeshire but in April 2010, CCS became a standalone trust. It held the file and therefore responded to the complainant on its own behalf. The complainant argued that the information should have been refused under section 21 of the Act as she believes she should have access to the information under the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The Commissioner finds NHS Cambridgeshire was correct to apply section 41(1). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0209 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50328160

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.530770

Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another: ChD 15 Jul 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1553 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another ChD 21-Dec-2005
The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB . .
See Also – Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another CA 2-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed a finding that it had abused its dominant market position in refusing to supply to the claimant a copyright licence for its information on horse racing at a proper or acceptable price. The defendant was said to have a monopoly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.228592

The Applicant and Transport Scotland: SIC 28 Nov 2019

Transport Scotland was asked about compensation or damages claims submitted to it by contractors in relation to the Queensferry Crossing project.
Transport Scotland withheld the information under section 33(1)(b) of FOISA, as it considered disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of the contractors.
The Commissioner investigated and found that, while Transport Scotland had correctly withheld some information under section 33(1)(b) of FOISA, it had wrongly withheld other information under this exemption. He also found that some information, only identified during the investigation, should have been identified earlier.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 170 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.645525

Suttle v Walker: QBD 18 Jan 2019

A joint award of pounds 40,000 was made for defamation and harassment in a case where the harassment alone justified an award at the upper end of the Vento scale [58], being a campaign in which the claimant was ‘clearly and deliberately targeted’ to create a ‘foreseeable response’ which was ‘vicious and frightening’ and ‘calculated to (and did) whip up hatred for the Claimant and put her in fear for her safety’. The ‘real . . reputational harm’ was adequately compensated within that award.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 396 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Information, Damages

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.634223

Calderdale Primary Care Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Apr 2011

The complainant asked Calderdale Primary Care Trust for information concerning the number of transsexuals in a specific area who had been referred to, and assessed by, a particular doctor for sex change surgery. The PCT answered the four questions by informing the complainant that in each case the answer was equal to or less than five. The PCT has refused to disclose the exact numbers involved as it considers that this would enable the identification of individual(s). It has therefore applied section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the detailed information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the PCT was correct to apply section 40(2) to this information and finds no breaches of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50349593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.530409

Crown Prosecution Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 12 Nov 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the Crown Prosecution Service offence charge directory. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the CPS breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the CPS to respond to the request. The CPS 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

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50591065

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.556687

Department for Transport (Central Government): ICO 12 Nov 2015

The complainant has requested information about the task of the Independent Airports Commission. The Department for Transport (DfT) refused to provide the requested information under section 35(1)(a) or section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) in the alternative and section 42 FOIA. So far as the withheld information is environmental, the DfT said it was relying upon regulation 12(4)(d) and (e) and regulation 12(5)(f) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT should have dealt with the request under EIR, however it was correct to apply regulation 12(4)(d) EIR to the withheld information and the public interest favours maintaining the exception The Commissioner also considers that the DfT has now identified all of the information it holds relevant to the scope of the request and that Regulation 12(4)(a) applies in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(d): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50582869

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.556691

Bonnier Audio AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB: ECJ 17 Nov 2011

ECJ (Opinion) Copyright and related rights – Right to effective protection of intellectual property – Directive 2004/48/EC – Article 8 – Protection of personal data – Electronic communications – Retention of data generated some – Transmission of data staff in particular – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 15 – Directive 2006/24/EC – Article 4 – Audiobooks – File Sharing – addressed to a judicial injunction Internet access provider to disclose the name and address a user IP address

Judges:

M Niloo Jaaskinen AG

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-461/10, C-461/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2006/24 4, Directive 2004/48/EC 8, Directive 2002/58/EC 15

Cited by:

Opinion – Bonnier Audio AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB ECJ 19-Apr-2012
ECJ The applicants, publishers with exclusive rights to reproduce etc, certain audio books, claimed that their exclusive rights had been infringed by the public distribution of the works without their consent by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.448695

Dransfield v Information Commissioner: UTAA 10 Dec 2020

Section 50 Jurisdiction – Information Commissioner (IC)’s e-mail to requester informing him that complaint about public authority not to be investigated as it was considered to be frivolous or vexatious (FOIA s.50(2)(c)) – whether IC’s email a decision notice for the purpose of FOIA ss.50(3)(b) and 57 – whether right of appeal to First-tier Tribunal against decision not to investigate – Judicial review as route to challenge s.50(2) decision – Jurisdiction of First-tier Tribunal – Fish Legal and Shirley v IC [2015] UKUT 52 (AAC) applied – whether IC’s action in excluding requester from access to First-tier Tribunal amounted to contempt of court – FOIA s.61- Raymond v Honey [1983] AC 1 and AD v IC and Devon CC [2013] UKUT 550 (AAC) considered – Interlocutory applications (e.g. as to recusal) dismissed.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 346 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.659527

United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd v Braine and Others: QBD 18 Dec 2019

Reasons for refusal of two applications by the claimants: (1) an application to continue until trial an interim non-disclosure order against these five defendants, first granted after a hearing without notice on; and (2) an application for an order for seizure and search of the fourth defendant’s computer.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3527 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice, Information

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.645995

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice) FS50419834: ICO 9 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information relating to the ICO’s investigation into the unlawful trade in confidential personal information which was known as Operation Motorman. This included within its scope the names of journalists, the names of publications and types of data linked to transactions identified in the ‘What Price Privacy Now’ report. It also included the information contained within a document seized by the ICO entitled the Blagger Training Manual, the Operation Motorman ‘case file’ and communications relating to the Operation Motorman investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to rely on section 40(2) with section 40(3)(a)(i) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the names of journalists linked to transactions identified in the What Price Privacy Now report. He also considers that section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) applies to this information by virtue of section 59 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The Commissioner considers that the ICO was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA (investigations conducted by public authorities) to withhold the information contained in the Blagger Training Manual that has not previously been published in the What Price Privacy report, the Operation Motorman ‘case file’ and the communications relating to the Operation Motorman investigation. He considers that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In relation to the information in the Blagger Training Manual which has previously been published in the What Price Privacy report the Commissioner considers that section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA is engaged but that the public interest in disclosing the information is at least equal to the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He therefore considers that the ICO was incorrect to withhold this information under section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA. However, he considers that section 21(1) of the FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means) applies to this information. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50419834

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.529737

Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another: QBD 24 Oct 2011

The claimant accused the defendant newspaper and journalist of breach of confidence, conversion and Data Protection breach. They said that he had received and published extracts from a confidential internal document leaked to him.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2705 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another QBD 18-Apr-2011
The defendant had been sued in defamation, and now sought release of police records as to the claimant. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447532

Nick Rowden and Highland Council: SIC 17 Aug 2011

SIC Antisocial behaviour investigation – Mr Rowden requested from Highland Council (the Council) reports and related information on investigations carried out by the Council into the behaviour of named individuals. The Council responded by withholding the information under a number of exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, as a result of which the Council also relied on additional exemptions, Mr Rowden remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Rowden’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the information. In this case, he was satisfied that the information was subject to legal professional privilege, or that it was personal data (some being Mr Rowden’s own personal data and some being the personal data of others, the disclosure of which would breach the data protection principles). He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 170 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447364

Mclean and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 23 Aug 2011

Compliance with timescales – This decision considers whether the City of Edinburgh 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 Mr McLean.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 177 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447360

Beck and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission: SIC 8 Aug 2011

Copy of a statement of reasons – Mr Beck requested from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (the SCCRC) the statement of reasons issued by the SCCRC in relation to a named individual. The SCCRC responded by advising Mr Beck that it considered the information to be exempt from disclosure in terms of section 26(a) of FOISA due to a prohibition on disclosure contained in section 194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the CPSA). Following a review, Mr Beck remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the SCCRC was prohibited from disclosing the information requested by Mr Beck, and so had correctly applied the exemption in section 26(a) of FOISA to the information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 155 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447380

Ralph Lucas and University of Glasgow: SIC 8 Aug 2011

Information relating to graduating students – Mr Ralph Lucas requested from the University of Glasgow (the University) statistical data relating to certain students who had graduated from the University in the academic years 2006/7 to 2008/9 inclusive. The University responded by advising Mr Lucas that it considered the information to be exempt from disclosure in terms of section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), on the basis that the disclosure of the information would identify individual graduates and disclosure would be unlawful under Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). Following a review, Mr Lucas remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the exemption did not apply to the statistical data. While he accepted that it was possible that disclosure would identify individuals (and he therefore agreed that the statistical data requested by Mr Lucas comprised personal data), he did not consider that disclosure would breach the DPA. He therefore required the University to provide Mr Lucas with the requested information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 156 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447368

Little Cumbrae Estate Limited and Solway Shellfish Management Association: SIC 24 May 2011

Verification and recording of cockle fishing and landings – This decision considers whether the Solway Shellfish Management Association (the SSMA) complied with the technical requirements of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs) in responding to an information request made on behalf of Little Cumbrae Estate Limited.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 097 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447291

Kane v Water Industry Commission for Scotland: SIC 14 Jul 2011

Meeting notes, minutes and correspondence
Mr Kane requested from the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) various board papers, meeting notes, minutes, correspondence and other records. WICS responded by providing some information to Mr Kane (including summaries of information held), while stating that other information was either not held or exempt from disclosure in terms of various sections of FOISA. Following a review, Mr Kane remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that, while WICS did not hold some of the information, and while WICS had correctly withheld certain information in terms of sections 30(b)(ii) and 36(1) of FOISA, it had partially failed to deal with Mr Kane’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that by providing summaries which failed to accurately provide the information held and by incorrectly withholding other information under section 30(c) of FOISA (not being satisfied that the disclosure of this information would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs in the ways WICS had claimed), WICS failed to comply with section 1(1). The Commissioner required WICS to provide the information to Mr Kane.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 140 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447344

Blyth v Glasgow City Council: SIC 24 May 2011

Type of engines in licensed taxis – Mr Ross Blyth (Mr Blyth) asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information as to the number of licensed taxis in the Glasgow area that have particular types of engines. The Council responded by giving Mr Blyth a notice under section 17 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) that it did not hold the requested information. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its reliance on section 17 of FOISA, Mr Blyth remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Blyth’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by advising Mr Blyth that it did not hold the requested information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 100 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447307

Loveday’s and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 8 Aug 2011

Clerk of Works’ qualifications and information relating to an on-site assessment
Loveday’s requested from Scottish Borders Council (the Council) information relating to a Clerk of Works appointed by the Council and information concerning an on-site assessment carried out at a specified address. The Council responded by advising Loveday’s that it did not hold any relevant information. Following a review, Loveday’s remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Loveday’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 152 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447350