Commonwealth Development Corporation (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2008

The public authority, CDC, is a government owned company which invests in private equity funds focused on emerging markets in developing parts of the world. The complainant requested the contract between CDC and Actis, one of its fund managers. CDC refused to disclose the contract on the basis that it was exempt under sections 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that whilst the majority of the sections of the contract are exempt on the basis of section 43(1), some of the sections are not exempt by virtue of either section 41 or 43 and therefore the Commissioner has ordered these sections to be disclosed.
FOI 12: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50094891

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.532581

Office of The First Minister and Deputy First Minister (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Jul 2013

The complainant made six requests to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). OFMDFM refused the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA on the basis that compliance would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that OFMDFM was entitled to refuse the requests, and does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50489215

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.528501

Bedfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Bedfordshire County Council (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the names 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. In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limit.
FOI 43: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50155380

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.532504

Warwickshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2008

The complainant requested information regarding an investigation carried out by the public authority into allegations that the decision to grant planning permission for ground close to the complainant’s property was made improperly. The public authority refused the request, on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner finds that this exception is engaged and that the public interest favours the maintenance of the exception. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with Regulation 14 when initially refusing the request, but that remedial action is not required.
EIR 12.5.b: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50080372

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.532599

Doncaster College (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2008

The complainant requested information from Doncaster College concerning reports of its investigation of allegations made against its former principal. The college refused this request under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner considers that the requested information is the personal data of the former principal and of other data subjects and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. The Commissioner therefore finds section 40(2) has been applied correctly to the majority of the requested information. The Commissioner has concluded that the college incorrectly relied on section 40(2) in respect of the details of Mr Gates’ severance payment. He therefore requires this information to be provided to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0038 has been dismissed.
FOI 1: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50165354

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.532587

Nationwide Energy Services and We Claim You Gain (Monetary Penalty Notice): ICO 18 Jun 2013

Monetary penalty notices have been served to Nationwide Energy Services and We Claim You Gain – both companies are part of Save Britain Money Ltd based in Swansea. The penalties were issued after the companies were found to be responsible for over 2,700 complaints to the Telephone Preference Service or reports to the ICO using its online survey, between 26 May 2011 and end of December 2012.

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.528371

Sheffield Hallam University (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jan 2013

The complainant made a freedom of information request to Sheffield Hallam University for a list of the workplace email addresses of all its staff. The University refused the request under the exemption in section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that section 36(2)(c) is engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50454677

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.527885

Commission for Patient and Public Involvement In Health (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Aug 2007

The complainant asked the public authority to provide him with all the information it held about a survey into the car parking provisions at a number of hospitals in the West Midlands. The public authority provided the complainant with a number of documents, but the complainant alleged that there were further documents held by the public authority which were not disclosed to him. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority located a number of further documents covered by the scope of the request and provided these to the complainant. By failing to originally disclose these documents the Commissioner has concluded that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act. The Commissioner is now satisfied that the complainant has been provided with all of the information falling within the scope of his request and therefore does not require the public authority to take any remedial action.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50145237

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.533026

St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2008

The complainant requested the names of the doctors who had previously worked in a particular hospital department between the years 2000 and 2004. The public authority initially refused the request on the basis of section 12 but in subsequent correspondence confirmed that it was withdrawing its reliance on section 12 and instead refused to disclose the information citing section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was correct to withhold the information on the basis of section 40 but breached section 17 of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days of the date of her request.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50119963

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.532597

Ashfield School (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information from Ashfield School about the Chair of Governor’s investigation of a number of his grievances. The Governors have given the complainant some information, principally the minutes of the meeting where the grievances were heard. The complainant stresses that it is Chair’s notes of his investigation and any associated documents related to his complaints that he is seeking. The Commissioner has determined that the Governors were not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) of the Act. This is on the basis that, if the information was held, it would constitute the complainant’s personal data and would be exempt under section 40(1). The Commissioner considers that the School should have treated the request as a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. He will now go on to make a separate assessment under section 42 of that Act.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50145243

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.532499

Google Inc (Enforcement Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2013

The ICO has served an enforcement notice on Google Inc following a serious breach of the Data Protection Act relating to the collection of payload data by Google’s Street View cars in the UK. The ICO’s decision follows the reopening of its investigation into the Google Street View project last year.

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.528355

Pinnington, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: Admn 31 Jul 2008

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the police to include in response to the enhanced criminal record request details of three allegations made but not proceeded with.
Held: By the terms of the statute it is for the chief constable or his delegate to form an opinion on that issue. In forming his opinion on relevance, the officer must ask himself whether the information might be true, and if it might be true he must consider the degree of connection between the information and the purpose described.

Judges:

Richards LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1870 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Act 1997 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedL, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis SC 29-Oct-2009
Rebalancing of Enhanced Disclosure Requirements
The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.271296

National Archives (Central Government) FS50802747: ICO 1 Jul 2019

The complainant requested access to the closed extracts from the open parent file FO/800/847 – Duke of Windsor. The National Archives (TNA) withheld the information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(a) of FOIA – communications with or on behalf of the Sovereign. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any steps.
FOI 37: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50802747

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.643247

National Archives (Central Government) FS50790615: ICO 1 Jul 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to the closed extract listed as FCO 57/769/1 held by The National Archives (TNA). TNA withheld the information, citing section 40(2) and 41(1) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has not gone on to consider the application of section 41 of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as TNA failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50790615

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.643246

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 2 Jul 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to the closed file FCO 87/842/1 – Closed extracts: Folios 110, 119, 124. (From open parent piece FCO 87/842.The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied section 37(1)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 37: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50805921

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.643248

Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 29 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information from Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) about its processes for discharging patients and managing its wards. To date, the Trust has not provided a response or responded to the complainant’s request for an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 1(1)(a) (general right of access) and section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA because it has not provided the complainant with a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response confirming or denying if the information is held. If the information is held the Trust must either disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice in compliance with section 17 of the Act. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50582981

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.555487

Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment (Central Government): ICO 7 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s legal authority to conduct interviews under caution. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department (DETI) does not hold any recorded information that has not been provided to the complainant. No further steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578842

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.555793

Harlow Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information on a decision by the council to terminate its contract with the Harlow Welfare Rights and Advice Centre, thereby resulting in the closure of the centre and the closure of the charity which ran it. The council provided some information but withheld other information on the basis that sections 41 and 43 applied (confidentiality and commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has incorrectly stated that it has responded to all parts of the request. He has decided that the council has not complied with the requirements of section 1(1) as regards question 2 and the complainant’s follow up question to question 9. The Commissioner has also decided that the council was not correct to apply sections 41 and 43(2) to information it received from third parties. The Commissioner has also decided that the council breached section 10 in respect of its response question 17 as it failed to respond, providing the relevant information within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority issue a fresh response to the questions outlined below as required by section 1(1) of the Act. To respond to the complainant as regards question 2 as outlined in para 24 below. To respond to the complainant as regards question 9 as outlined in para 36 below. To disclose information which was withheld under section 41 and section 43. 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. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Partly upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 41: Not upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565674

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.555806

Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others: QBD 23 Nov 2015

Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online translations to English could be created automatically. The parties disputed the number of hits from within the UK.
Held: The order giving permission to the Claimant to serve these proceedings on the Defendants out of the jurisdiction was be set aside.

Judges:

Sir Michael Tugendhat

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3380 (QB), [2016] 1 WLR 1414, [2015] WLR(D) 494, [2016] EMLR 8

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Defamation Act 2013 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedAK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others PC 10-Mar-2011
Developing Law – Summary Procedures Very Limited
(Isle of Man) (‘Altimo’) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable in Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate . .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedBerezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedMRG (Japan) Ltd v Engelhard Metals Japan Ltd ComC 18-Dec-2003
Application to set aside leave to serve out of jurisdiction.There must a ‘good arguable case’ to justify such service. . .
CitedCongentra Ag v Sixteen Thirteen Marine Sa (‘the Nicholas M’) ComC 15-Jul-2008
Applications for dismissal of interim freezing order and for continuance. Order not set aside. The claim was for a freezing order to support a claim for recovery of damage to goods being transported. The court now considered an allegation that the . .
CitedAdelson and Another v Anderson and Another QBD 7-Oct-2011
The defendants sought a strike out of this libel action, begun in response to an words published in September 2004, saying that they were an abuse, and that the claimant’s delay demonstrated that his real and only interest was not in vindication. . .
CitedShaw and Another v Logue Admn 13-Jan-2014
Appeals against orders striking the two appellant solicitors from the roll.
Held: Jay J said: ‘the duty requires a party to ‘. . disclose all facts which reasonably could or would be taken into account by the Judge in deciding whether to grant . .
CitedKennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
CitedAmes and Another v The Spamhaus Project Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jan-2015
Warby J said: ‘ . . but as practitioners in this field are well aware, it is generally impractical for a claimant to seek out witnesses to say that they read the words complained of and thought the worse of the claimant’ . .
CitedLachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to . .
CitedSloutsker v Romanova QBD 5-Mar-2015
The claimant sued for libel in respect of the publication in this jurisdiction of allegations of fabricating evidence, conspiracy to murder, and the bribery and corruption of the prosecutor and judges in criminal proceedings. The defendant now . .
CitedEl Diwany v Hansen and Another QBD 29-Jul-2011
Defendant’s application to set aside judgment in default – lack of service. . .
CitedModi and Another v Clarke CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants, organisers of the Indian Premier cricket League, met with organisations in England seeking to establish a similar league in the Northern Hemisphere. A copy of a note came to the defendant, chairman of the England and Wales Cricket . .
CitedJeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Defamation, Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.555022

Guildford Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 3 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information about the departure of the Head of Planning. Guildford Borough Council (the council) refused the request relying on section 40(5) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. It considered to either confirm or deny holding the information would in itself reveal personal data about the Head of Planning. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(5) of the FOIA in this case. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563326

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.555486

Bletchingley Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Feb 2008

The complainant asked for copies of the annual reports and accounts of Bletchingley Parish Council (‘the Council’) from 2004-2007, a letter from the Council’s indemnity insurer authorising it ‘sole executive powers’ and a copy of the original proposal form and terms and conditions of the Council’s original insurance policy. The Council advised the complainant that the annual accounts were already in the public domain and therefore exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). It applied the exemption under section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) to the original insurance documents requested because of ongoing litigation involving the complainant. The Commissioner investigated and was satisfied that the annual accounts and reports are available on the website and are therefore exempt under section 21 of the Act. However, he found that the remainder of the information requested concerning the Council’s insurer is not held by the Council. In addition, the Commissioner noted a number of procedural failings, in particular the Council breached section 1 and section 17 of the Act.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50165280

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.532507

Mr X and Dunbritton Housing Association Ltd: SIC 6 Jul 2015

SIC Transfer of The Brown Street Complex, Haldane By West Dunbartonshire Council – On 21 July 2013, Mr X asked Dunbritton Housing Association Ltd (Dunbritton) for information relating to the transfer of shops and flats in Brown Street, Haldane by West Dunbartonshire Council. Dunbritton informed Mr X that it was not covered by the EIRs and refused to respond to his subsequent requirement for review. On 2 June 2014, the Commissioner issued Decision 118/2014 finding that Dunbritton is a Scottish public authority for the purposes of the EIRs and requiring it to carry out a review. Dunbritton carried out the review and informed Mr X of the outcome on 14 July 2014. Dunbritton disclosed information to Mr X, but withheld some on the basis that it was excepted from disclosure under the EIRs.
On 21 December 2014, Mr X made a further application to the Commissioner. During her investigation Dunbritton argued that it was not a Scottish public authority for the purposes of the EIRs.
The Commissioner found that:
(i) Dunbritton is a Scottish public authority for the purposes of the EIRs (as she had previously found in Decision 118/2014) and
(ii) Dunbritton had responded to Mr X’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs.

Citations:

[2015] ScotIC 099 – 2015

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.550881

Stockton On Tees Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Feb 2011

The complainant requested information about planned works on two named roads over a period of 9 years; he subsequently reduced the scope of his request from 9 years to 3 years. The Council provided some of the information which it held electronically but refused to search its manual records stating that to do so for the 9 year period initially requested would exceed the cost limit set out by section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, and that it could not be certain that it held any manual records relevant to the request. The Commissioner has found that the request should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations and that the relevant exception would be 12(4)(b), he has decided that it would not be manifestly unreasonable to comply with the refined request. The Commissioner is also not convinced by the arguments supplied in relation to the original request being manifestly unreasonable. However the complainant has confirmed that information for 3 years (the refined request) would be sufficient for his needs. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to carry out these searches in relation to the refined request and either provide the complainant with any information it finds or issue a refusal notice which is compliant with the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 9 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0293993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.530239

Bexley London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Bexley (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the majority of the information requested however claimed that the information it had redacted (names of brokers used by one particular investment manager) 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 Council has already provided the information to which the complainant is entitled and therefore it is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint.
FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50155378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.532506

Broxbourne Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information relating to senior post holders at Broxbourne Borough Council. The council supplied some information and withheld other information using the exemption under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, relating to personal data, and section 21, relating to information that is reasonably accessible by other means. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 10, and 17(1), 17(1)(a) (b) and (c) and 17(7)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50449086

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.529696

Financial Ombudsman Service (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Dec 2012

The complainant submitted four requests to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) all of which focused on the FOS’ handling of complaints it had received concerning the Royal Bank of Scotland’s ‘Virgin One’ account. The FOS refused to answer requests 1 and 2 on the basis of section 12 of FOIA, it explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of request 3, and although it held one document falling within the scope of request 4, it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the FOS was entitled to rely on sections 12 and 41(1) to refuse these requests. Furthermore, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the FOS does not hold any information that could be used to fulfil requests 1 and 2 within the cost limit, does not hold any information falling within the scope of request 3 and does not hold any information falling within the scope of request 4 other than the document that has been withheld on the basis of section 41(1). The Commissioner does not require the FOS to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50458649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.530073

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 18 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested the documents contained within a specific archived file. The National Archives withheld the requested information as it claimed that the information was the personal data of a third party and that disclosure would contravene the General Data Protection Regulation principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50870731

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.643500

Exelby Leeming and Newton Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 5 Feb 2015

The complainant’s associate has requested information relating to Exelby Lemming and Newton Parish Council’s appointment of its external auditor. The Commissioner finds that the Council has failed to comply with the requirements of section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s associate’s information request within the twenty working days compliance time. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a response to the complainant’s associate’s request which properly complies with the requirements of section 1 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563243

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.555084

HM Revenue and Customs (Central Government ): ICO 17 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) about its calculation of losses sustained by a partnership. HMRC stated that the information, if held, would be exempt under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA and explained that the duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held does not arise under section 44(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was correct to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information under section 44(2)(a) of the FOIA.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50579569

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.555809

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Mar 2011

The complainant requested the annual budget of Coventry and Warwickshire radio station since 2005 and the annual external advertising budgets outside of BBC broadcasts for the same period. The BBC stated that the requested information fell outside the scope of the Act because it is information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed the external advertising budgets. In relation to the remainder of the information the Commissioner’s decision is that it is genuinely held for the purposes of journalism. Therefore the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50302135

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.530272

University of Wales (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Mar 2011

The complainant requested a copy of a report in relation to a review commissioned by the University into its commercial activities. The public authority refused the request by virtue of section 22 of the Act and also relied on the exemption at section 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and has concluded that section 43(2) is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. As a result, he has not considered the University’s application of section 22 of the Act. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50344862

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.530400

Nottingham City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Sep 2012

The complainant requested the names and numbers of individuals who had signed an e-petition on Nottingham City Council’s (the council’s) website. The council failed to provide a response to the request within 20 working days, in breach of section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council either to comply with the requirements of section 1 of the FOIA or to issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50433223

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.529854

Southwark Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 May 2012

The complainant has requested – all papers related to the Greenland dock future options, item 81 in Southwark Council’s Forward Plan for December 2011 to March 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that Southwark Council (the council) incorrectly applied section 22 of the Act in relation to the requested information and therefore requires the council to disclose this information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50432734

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.529530

Natural England (Education (Other)): ICO 3 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested the combined financial amount that Natural England required to be raised and/or held by the two companies in Gloucestershire and Somerset as a condition of issuing their licences. The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England has failed to demonstrate that the exceptions in regulation 12(5)(d) and regulation 12(5)(e) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0059 allowed.
EIR 12(5)(d): Upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0543199

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.555129

City of York Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 18 May 2015

The complainant has submitted two requests for information to City of York Council (‘the Council’) about the diary of its Chief Executive, Kersten England. The Council refused to comply with the two requests under section 12 of the FOIA because the cost of doing so would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 to the requests. However he does not consider the Council has met its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires City of York Council to consider how the requests might be narrowed in scope so that they could be managed within the cost limit, and to communicate its findings to the complainant.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566239 and FS

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.555386

North London Waste Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information connected to the re-development of the Brent Cross area in North London. The Commissioner’s decision is that North London Waste Authority has not complied with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) as regards some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to release the withheld information in documents 2, 19, 47 and 48.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.d – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0429163

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.529849

Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Sep 2012

The complainant requested the accounts of Devon and Cornwall Police (the police) for the five years preceding the request. The police responded 22 working days after receiving clarification from the complainant as to the scope of her request and disclosed the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the police 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.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50457086

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.529819

Government Actuarys Department (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information concerning a review of the commutation factors for police pensions carried out by the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD). The GAD stated that some of the information requested was not held and cited the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) in relation to other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GAD was correct in stating that some information was not held, but that in relation to other information it was incorrect and in breach of section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA to state this. In relation to the citing of section 35(1)(a), the Commissioner finds that this exemption was not engaged and so it was cited incorrectly. The Commissioner requires the GAD to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In relation to the information covered at paragraph 16 below which the section 1(1)(a) breach concerns, the GAD is now required to either disclose this to the complainant, or issue a refusal notice in line with the requirements of section 17. In relation to the information for which section 35(1)(a) was cited, the GAD is now required to disclose this to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50420602

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.529825

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 19 Mar 2015

The complainant requested a number of special branch files from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) relating to the Newham Monitoring Project. The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any of the files by virtue of sections 23(5) (supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security), 30(3) (criminal investigations), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 23(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of section 23(1) of the FOIA. He requires no steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 23: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566170

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.555178

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government): ICO 30 Mar 2015

The complainant submitted three requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all of which sought to establish whether legal advice had been sought on particular aspects of the government nuclear weapons policy, and if advice was held, the title and author of the advice. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information – and thus not comply with the duty contained at section 1(1)(a) of FOIA – on the basis of sections 35(3) and 42(2) of the legislation. The Commissioner has decided that although both exemptions are engaged, the public interest in maintaining each exemption does not outweigh the public interest in the FCO complying with the duty contained at section 1(1)(a) of FOIA in relation to each of the complainant’s three requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of each of the complainant’s three requests is held, and disclose or refuse to disclose any information identified in a manner which is compliant with FOIA. 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. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 35: Upheld FOI 42: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557698

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.555195

Tewkesbury Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 24 Aug 2015

The complainant has requested contact and correspondence information from Tewkesbury Borough Council (‘TBC’) relating to a supermarket car park. TBC refused this citing Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt by virtue of Regulation 5(3) because it is the complainant’s personal data. No steps are required under the EIR.
EIR 5(3): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0571952

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.555757

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 15 Jun 2015

The complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relating to the role of work coaches at Jobcentre Plus. The DWP provided the complainant with some general guidance documents which were of relevance to the request. The complainant believes that more information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities it is likely that the DWP has provided the complainant with all of the information relevant to the request. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50571433

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.555472

Dartford Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 3 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested a copy of a draft planning recommendation report and emails relating to a specified planning application from Dartford Borough Council (the council). The council initially refused the request under section 36 of the FOIA. However, following the Commissioner’s intervention it then considered the request under the EIR and determined that the information was excepted from disclosure under regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) as it was unfinished material and consisted of internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the requested information. He does not require the council to take any steps.
EIR 12(4)(d): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0573801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.555466

HM Revenue and Customs (Central Government): ICO 8 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information about child tax credit applications for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. HMRC has refused the request citing section 12 of the FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly engaged section 12. However, he notes that HMRC failed to provide a response citing section 12 within the statutory time limit of 20 working days and therefore has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any further steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568048

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.555494

Portsmouth City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 16 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested details about a Finance Manager post at a particular school. Portsmouth City Council (‘the Council’) refused to provide the requested information saying it was the personal data of the current post holder and therefore exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not personal data as it relates to the post itself so the exemption is not engaged. He requires the Council to provide the information requested.
FOI 40: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.555243

Golborne Community Primary School (Education (School)): ICO 5 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested from Golborne Community Primary School (the ‘School’) the number of pupils that have been withdrawn from the School during a specific period, details of staff absences and departures, and the number of complaints logged with the School. The School refused to comply with the request for information on the basis that the request is vexatious in accordance with section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and that the School has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50550415

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.555197

Bexley London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jul 2013

The complainant requested a copy of an independently commissioned arboricultural report together with details of the cost to the public authority to provide the report. The report had been disclosed by the time he complained to the Commissioner. The cost of providing the report was subsequently disclosed during the course of the investigation. The Commissioner finds the public authority in breach of regulation 5(2) for failing to disclose the report and the cost of providing it within 20 working days of the date of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50490245

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.528416

Luton Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jul 2013

The complainant made a request for information through his solicitors for information concerning trading standards investigations conducted by Luton Borough Council (the council) which were similar to the investigation the council conducted into his business. The council refused to provide the requested information stating it was exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the FOIA as it was prohibited from disclosure under section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the exemption to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50475081

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.528485

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2008

The complainant requested information relating to the payments of his late Uncle’s pensions. The public authority provided some information but withheld some under section 40 and stated that the remaining information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed the information withheld under section 40 as it concluded this exemption was not applicable. The Commissioner’s investigation found that the remaining information was not held. However, the Commissioner has found the public authority were in breach of section 10 and 17 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50155312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.532584

Surrey County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 May 2012

The complainant requested the minutes of a meeting from Surrey County Council. The council provided the information that it held however the complainant was not satisfied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council provided the information that it held on the balance of probabilities. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50431085

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.529534

Wickhambreaux Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jun 2013

ICO The complainant requested information regarding the sale of Ickham Grazing Marshes by the Church Commissioners, information relating to the Council’s application to register Seaton Meadow as a Village Green and information about Seaton Meadow in general. The Council initially considered the whole request under the FOIA but later accepted that some information should have been considered under the EIR. It provided some information to the complainant but refused other information by virtue of sections 21, 22 and 42 of the FOIA. It also relied on section 1(1)(a) for information it discounted on the basis that it was produced by or received by Councillors and not therefore held for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wickhambreaux Parish Council (WPC) has not considered this request in compliance with the EIR. The Commissioner believes it is likely that all of it would be environmental information as defined by regulation 2(1)(a) to (f) of the EIR. The Commissioner also considers that the information withheld by virtue of section 42 of the FOIA, provided to him during the course of this investigation, falls within the definition of environmental information and should have been withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50463579

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.528405

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 29 Apr 2013

A journalist requested access to and had been refused, invoices used by members of parliament to support their expenses claims.

Judges:

Angus Hamilton HHJ

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2012 – 0242 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoThe Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 28-Apr-2015
A journalist had requested the appellant who published the claims made by Members of Parliament for expenses to its website had requested in addition copies of the receipts produced by the MPs to justify three claims. The Authority provided a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.517877

Westminster City Council (Local Government): ICO 11 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested information on correspondence and minutes of meetings between Westminster City Council (‘the Council’) and Pret a Manger (‘Pret’) related to the issues raised by Real Bread Campaign’s (‘the Campaign’) complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council appropriately withheld some of the information in the scope of the request in reliance of section 41(1) – Information provided in confidence and some of the information in the scope of section 43(2) – Commercial interests. However, she finds that the public interest favours disclosure of some of the information withheld under section 43(2). The Commissioner also finds that these exemptions are not engaged in respect of some of the withheld information. The exemption at section 21 – Information accessible to the applicant by other means is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information as detailed in the Confidential Annex.
FOI 43(2): Complaint upheld FOI 21: Complaint upheld FOI 41: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50798087

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.643528

Fylde Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 3 Oct 2018

The complainant has requested a licence agreement relating to the use of Lytham Green. Fylde Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43). The Commissioner’s decision is that Fylde Borough Council has correctly withheld information under section 43(2) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50745082

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.628506