Northamptonshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested recorded information relating to Northamptonshire County Council’s LGSS shared services organisation. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council does not hold recorded information which is relevant to questions 2 – 6 of the complainant’s request. The complainant also seeks five invoices for goods and services provided to the Council by LGSS and which the Council has withheld in reliance of section 43(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is properly engaged and therefore he requires the Council to take the following action to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council is required to disclose the five invoices referred to in the complainant’s request.
FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50573003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555519

South Gloucestershire Council (Local Government): ICO 18 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed development. South Gloucestershire Council disclosed some information and withheld the reminder, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Gloucestershire Council has cited regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR appropriately. However, she considers that SGC has breached regulations 5(2) (time for compliance) and 14(3) (refusal to disclose information) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require South Gloucestershire Council to take any steps following this decision notice.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 14(3): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0715540

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621377

Oxford City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 10 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint made by a councillor. Oxford City Council (OCC) failed to respond within the 20 working day limit thereby breaching section 10 of the FOIA. As OCC has now responded, the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50561891

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555138

Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (Health (NHS)): ICO 3 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the number of deaths that occurred on a specific ward for a period of four years. The Commissioner’s decision is Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (UHB) has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555175

Hambleton District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 5 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information held by Hambleton District Council which concerns the potential sale of his property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hambleton District Council has properly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the information sought by the complainant and it is therefore entitled to withhold that information. No further action is required of the Council in respect of this request.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552141

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555199

Lanteglos By Fowey Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)) FS50552246: ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested copies of correspondence and invoices sent between Lanteglos by Fowery Parish Council (the council) and its auditor and bank for a specific period. The council initially responded by providing some information but refusing the remainder under sections 43(2) and 41 of the FOIA. This was upheld in its internal review. During the Commissioner’s initial investigations the council amended its response to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555217

Royal Borough of Greenwich (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 19 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested from Greenwich Council information on the document retention/archiving/FOI training received by the ‘accountable’ person(s) in the Directorate of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills from 2009 to date. The Commissioner’s decision is that Greenwich Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request based on a balance of probability test. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0063 dismissed.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50554502

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555142

Oxford Brookes University (Education (University)): ICO 26 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested from Oxford Brookes University (the ‘University’) the reasons for the increased entry requirement to the one year foundation paramedic degree course and who required the increase, the University or SCAS (South Central Ambulance Service). The University provided the complainant with a document containing the course entry requirements and it confirmed that it does not hold any further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50559771

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555136

Financial Conduct Authority (Local Government (Other)): ICO 30 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information about which company supplied indemnity cover to the [named company] during the period of 2009 and 2010. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) refused to provide the requested information under section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA correctly applied section 44(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50567516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555194

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Jan 2012

The complainant asked to see a report made by the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) into a data protection security breach involving a certain organisation. The complainant had been informed by that organisation that she had been affected by the security breach, and accordingly requested sight of the ICO’s report into the matter. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that an objective reading of the complainant’s request was that she had asked for – sight of the actual report – and that no such report is held by the ICO. He has therefore concluded that the ICO has complied with the FOIA in this case in that it stated correctly that the requested information was not held.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50410250

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.529085

Mason v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Barnet (GIA): UTAA 19 Feb 2020

The First-tier Tribunal’s decision that information was not ‘environmental information’ within regulation 2 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2000 was in error of law because the tribunal did not correctly apply the guidance in DBEIS v IC and Henney [2017] PTSR 1644. The case was remitted to the FTT for reconsideration.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 56 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651798

Richards v The Information Commissioner, The Welsh Government (Information Rights): UTAA 29 Nov 2019

Information Rights – Proper meaning of s58 FOIA 2000; whether First-tier Tribunal was entitled to refuse the requester’s appeal AND to substitute the Information Commissioner’s notice; decides (consistent with decision in The Information Commissioner v Malnick and ACOBA [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)) that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law when it purported to substitute its decision for that of the Information Commissioner, having dismissed the appeal.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 379 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651672

Wiltshire Council (Local Government): ICO 12 May 2020

The complainant requested from Wiltshire Council (‘the Council’) information relating to a housing association. The Council refused to disclose the requested information and cited section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 42(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld
Decision notice: fs50870719

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50870719

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651559

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 7 Feb 2020

The complainant has requested information relating to the appointment of governors at the school and specific information concerning the departure of one and the appointment of another. To the date of this notice, International Academy of Greenwich (the school) has failed to respond to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s information request within the statutory timeframe for compliance. The Commissioner requires the school to respond to the complainant’s information request in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50898292

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651401

Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 4 Nov 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to the qualifications obtained by a member of staff at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50819174

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.650357

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Central Government): ICO 6 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) concerning contracts between the FCDO and Torchlight Group Ltd. A substantive response to the request had not been issued by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCDO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA. The FCDO 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 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-80443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.657978

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Central Government): ICO 4 Jan 2021

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) seeking information it held about the her father who died in a car accident in Pakistan in 1964 whilst working at as the Second Secretary at the High Commission in Lahore. The FCDO explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The complainant disputed the FCDO’s response. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the FCDO does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-46266

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.657977

Four Marks Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested a copy of the minutes of a closed session of Four Marks Parish Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Four Marks Parish Council has correctly applied the exception for internal communications at Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to agenda item 14.162. He has also decided that agenda item 14.161 does not constitute environmental information as defined by regulation 2(1) of the EIR. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the information at agenda item 14.161 to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice under the FOIA.
EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0576056

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555481

Queen Mary University of London (Education (University)): ICO 17 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to particular test results within a clinical trial carried out by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). The Commissioner’s decision is that QMUL has correctly refused the request as the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0108 withdrawn.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557646

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555244

Nursing and Midwifery Council (Health (Other)): ICO 17 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to an individual witness statement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) was correct to neither confirm nor deny that the information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565027

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555235

Newcastle Under Lyme Council (Local Government (County Council)) FS50576108: ICO 22 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information from Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council (the council) relating to a specified business premises. The council has acknowledged the request, but not provided a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA as the response was not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 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 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50576108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555341

Calderdale Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 3 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested to know the number of people’s records being stored and/or processed outside of data protection policies in the Children’s and Social Care Service. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) initially advised that it did not hold the information, but during the Commissioner’s investigations it considered section 12 of the FOIA was engaged because to retrieve and extract the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570289

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555450

Office for Standards In Education (Education (College)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested from Ofsted information in response to a statement by a named Ofsted officer, for details of how and when the complainant’s correspondence was given consideration. Ofsted refused to comply with the request for information on the basis that the request is vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and that Ofsted has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require Ofsted to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0072 dismissed.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566952

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555236

Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 4 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to allotments within Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish. The Council refused to provide the complainant with the requested information on the grounds that her request is vexatious. The Commissioner has considered the representations made to him by Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Council. He has decided that the Council has incorrectly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose to the complainant any recorded information it holds which is relevant to her request or it should issue a new refusal notice which is compliant with the provisions of section 17 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 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558878

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555445

Bolton Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information on the costs of the council associated with a court case which he was involved in a number of years ago. Costs were awarded to the council at the end of the case. The complainant requests are for more information about how the council funds litigation, on its costs when in litigation and on any legal obligation which the council has to repay the money it spends. He asked if the money used to fund litigation is drawn from a third party fund. The council clarified that legal services, and litigation are paid for via the normal council budget, and therefore no information is held relating to any third party fund. Information is already published highlighting funds received by the council from normal means (i.e. local taxation and funds paid by central government) via its published accounts. The council therefore applied section 21 to that information. The Commissioner has decided that the council was also correct to apply section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the council does hold is subject to section 21 of the Act. He has also decided that on a balance of probabilities no further information is held by the council falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The council did however fail to respond to the request within 20 working days and so the Commissioner’s decision is that it did not comply with section 10(1) in this respect. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50550023

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555442

Lincolnshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 5 Mar 2015

The complainant requested various types of information in relation to a school building such as its design, works carried out, the impact as a result of a tidal surge and discussions between the school and Lincolnshire County Council (the council). The council refused part of the request under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, part under section 21 of the FOIA and regulation 6 of the EIR, it advised it did not hold some of the information and applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the remaining information as it considered that to provide the remaining information would be manifestly unreasonable. Following an internal review, the council withdrew its reliance of regulation 12(4)(b) and instead applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to this part of the request. The council also provided a small amount of information but redacted third party details under regulation 13 of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigations the council also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR for the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(b). It also no longer relied on regulation 21 of the FOIA or regulation 6 of the EIR, advising it did not actually hold the information. The complainant was not satisfied that the council had withheld the information it had under regulation 12(5)(b) and (d) of the EIR, nor that it stated it did not hold any of the other requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held by it. As the Commissioner found that regulation 12(5)(b) was engaged, he did not go on to consider regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0551773

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555219

East Hampshire District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 23 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information from East Hampshire District Council (‘the council’) about settlement policy boundaries. The council responded that no information was held, which the complainant subsequently disputed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. However, the council failed to provide an internal review within forty working days of this being requested, and therefore breached regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken
FOI 11: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0562751

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555192

Creech St Michael Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 23 Feb 2015

The complainant requested from Creech St Michael Parish Council (‘the council’) a copy of a recording made at a meeting when the sale of an area of land known as Merlyn’s Copse was discussed. The council initially relied on the exception under regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) to withhold the information. This exception concerns prejudice to commercial interests. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council clarified that it did not hold the information, which the complainant accepted. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’) for failing to state that the information was not held. It also breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR for failing to state that the information was not held. There were additional breaches of regulation 14(2), 14(5)(a) and (b) under the EIR because of the failure to inform the requester of his statutory rights to request an internal review and appeal to the Information Commissioner.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld EIR 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0550024

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555074

Greater London Authority (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 10 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested the GLA to disclose a full copy of the original Development Agreement dated 19 April 2011 and a full certified copy of the Deed of Variation dated 10 December 2013 including appendices relating to the Blackwall Reach Compulsory Purchase Order. The GLA disclosed some information but informed the complainant that it did not hold the version of the Development Agreement it required. For this element of the request the GLA applied regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation it came to light that the version of the Development Agreement the complainant required was still held by the GLA’s predecessor the HCA. It was therefore accepted that the HCA in fact holds the requested information on behalf of the GLA. At the time of writing this notice, the GLA had obtained the requested information from the HCA but had not issued a fresh response to the complainant. The Commissioner therefore requires the HCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with this legislation: the GLA should issue a fresh response in relation to the copy of the Development Agreement obtained from the HCA, that does not cite regulation 12(4)(a). In terms of how the request was handled, the Commissioner has found that the GLA was in breach of 11 of the EIR in this case.
EIR 12(4)(a): Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0555755

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555198

Mid Devon District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 17 Feb 2015

The complainant has made a request to Mid Devon District Council (‘the council’) for information relating to pre-application advice for solar parks and farms. The council refused the request under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The complainant subsequently requested that the council conduct an internal review. On failing to receive an internal review, the complainant submitted the matter to the Commissioner. On receipt of the complaint, the Commissioner decided that the request fell under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’), which requires the council to conduct an internal review when this is requested. However, despite the Commissioner’s intervention the council has since failed to undertake this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with the requirements of regulations 11(3) and 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to conduct an internal review which meets the terms of the EIR.
EIR 11(3): Upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0540556

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555118

Mid Suffolk District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information about professional subscriptions from Mid Suffolk District Council (the ‘Council’). The Council did not respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The complainant requested that a decision notice be issued by the Information Commissioner recording the delay. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by issuing its response late but, as a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563861

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555221

Eynsford Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 23 Mar 2015

The complainant requested various items of information relating to railway sleepers placed along one edge of an access road into a car park owned by Eynsford Parish Council (‘the council’). The council said that the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requests were correctly refused using section 14(1) and the remaining requests were excepted under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’), which relates to manifestly unreasonable requests. The public interest favoured withholding this information. The Commissioner has found that the council breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) and (b) for failing to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552974

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555193

Yarm Town Council (Local Government (Town Council)): ICO 17 Feb 2015

The complainant has made a request to Yarm Town Council (‘the council’) for information relating to the council’s decision to seek legal advice. The council provided some information in response, but with contact information redacted under the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The complainant subsequently contested the council’s application of section 40(2), and whether all held information had been otherwise disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld information under section 40(2), and has otherwise provided all held information that falls within the scope of the request. However, the council provided its response outside of 20 working days, and therefore breached the requirement of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50531303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555159

Caerphilly County Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 19 Mar 2015

The complainant requested copies of correspondence and minutes of meetings between Islwyn Indoor Bowls Club and Caerphilly County Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Council initially stated that it did not hold the information requested. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council made a number of disclosures of information, subject to some personal data being withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information other than that which it has disclosed (subject to some information within the documents being withheld under section 40(2)). However, the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide the information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50546005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555170

East Hampshire District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 16 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to how the council used a delegated decision on a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached the requirements of Regulation 11(4) in that it did not respond to a request for review within 40 working days. He has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 14(3) in that it applied Regulation 12(5)(f) in its initial refusal notice without explaining how or why the exception was appropriate. The Commissioner does not however require any steps.
EIR 11: Upheld EIR 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0559889

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555191

Down District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested copies of two handwritten witness statements. Down District Council said the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) and no steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50554853

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555189

Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations (Education (Other)): ICO 5 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested from Oxford Cambridge and RSA (‘OCR’) information concerning a statement that was made by an employee at the OCR about the change in the English Literature GCSE curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that OCR has provided the complainant with all the recorded information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558529

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555137

Information Commissioners Office (Local Government (Other)): ICO 9 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information about the use of HM Revenue and Customs funds. The ICO asked the complainant to clarify their request but considered that the clarification the complainant provided did not sufficiently clarify the scope of the request. The ICO has said that under section 1(3) of the FOIA it is not obliged to respond to the request because it did not receive the further information that it had requested from the complainant; that would enable it to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 1(3). In addition he considers that the ICO met its duty under section 16 of the FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50562670

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555210

Health and Safety Executive (Education (Other)): ICO 23 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the Elgin blowout. The HSE refused to disclose the requested information under section 30(1)(b) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied section 30(1)(b) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555202

Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 5 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to an ‘Outline Business Case’ (OBC). The Commissioner’s decision is that Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust has incorrectly applied section 22(1) of the FOIA in its response to the request. As the information has already been made public the Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 22: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50559736

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.555171

Newcastle Under Lyme Council (Local Government (County Council)) FS50572884: ICO 22 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information from Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council (the council) relating to a specified business premises. The council has acknowledged the request, but not provided a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA as the response was not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 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 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50572884

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.555340

Gedling Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 4 Nov 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint they have raised about a specific Councillor. Gedling Borough Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some information in response to the request but redacted the majority of the information because it considered that the information within scope was the personal data of third parties and that disclosure would breach the GDPR principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that, as the information concerns events involving the complainant which led to them raising the complaint, all of the information falling within the scope of the request is in fact the complainant’s own personal data. She has therefore applied section 40(1) of the FOIA proactively to prevent disclosure of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50851255

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.650296

Newcastle Under Lyme Council (Local Government (County Council)) FS50570554: ICO 22 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information from Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council (the council) relating to a specified business premises. The council has responded to the request, but outside the specified time frame. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA as the response was not provided within 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570554

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.555339

London Borough of Barnet (Local Government): ICO 4 Nov 2019

The complainant has requested information about a particular box junction. The London Borough of Barnet denied holding some of the requested information and refused to provide the remainder as it estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore the London Borough is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. However, she also finds that the London Borough’s advice and assistance has not complied with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help her refine her request to within the appropriate limit.
FOI 16: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50862681

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.650325

West Mercia Police (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2011

The complainant requested information relating to a police investigation. Having had his first requests refused on the grounds of exceeding the cost threshold he then submitted 24 separate requests on the same day. The public authority aggregated the cost of compliance with these requests and again refused to disclose this information on the grounds that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority correctly aggregated the costs and that compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. It is not required to comply with the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50396632

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.530920

Brighton and Hove Council (Undertakings): ICO 18 Jan 2012

Brighton and Hove Council emailed the details of another member of staff’s annual salary – and the deductions made from this – to 2,821 council workers. A third party also informed the ICO of a historic breach which occurred in May 2009 when an unencrypted laptop was stolen from the home of a temporary employee.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-51

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.529042

Department for Education (Central Government) FS50830863: ICO 5 Dec 2019

The complainant has requested information on a high pay exercise conducted by the Department for Education (DfE) into academy trusts and for trusts to be named in relation to various categories. The DfE refused the request on the basis of section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the requested information.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50830863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651560

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 31 Mar 2020

The complainant requested information about Langdale Free School to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). The Department for Education (DfE) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the DfE met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50885034

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651454

HM Treasury (Central Government): ICO 4 Nov 2019

The complainant requested information relating to how much debt the UK owes to foreign governments including foreign sovereign entities. The public authority concluded that it did not hold any information matching the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner accepted that on the balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold the information requested by the complainant.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50812011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.650310

Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested the shotgun licences and firearms certificates of named individuals held by the council in accordance with the Deed relating to sporting rights on Ilkley Moor (2008) (the Deed). The council confirmed that the information was held in relation to some of the named individuals, but refused to provide copies of the certificates and licences as it considered that the information had been provided in confidence and so section 41 applied. In his role as dual regulator of both the FOIA and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA), the Commissioner has a duty to protect personal data where necessary. He finds that the information in this case is personal data, and that the council should have applied section 40(2). His decision therefore is that although the council was correct to withhold the information, the reason for doing so is section 40(2) rather than section 41. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50551681

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.555163

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 3 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to financial and governance issues at Wakefield City Academies Trust (WCAT). The DfE responded to the request by refusing to disclose the requested information under sections 36, 40 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 36 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50713498

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.621312

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 24 Oct 2016

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (The ‘DFE’) relating to details of pre – 2010 academy pledges which had not been fulfilled. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DFE did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA in the following way: It failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50645845

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.572858

British Museum (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Oct 2008

The complaint submitted two requests to the British Museum, the first focusing on the ‘Parthenon Marbles’ and the second on the ‘Terracotta Army’. The British Museum provided some information in relation to these requests but relied on the exemptions contained at sections 22, 31, 36 and 43 of the Act to withhold the remainder of the information. With the exception of the application of section 22, the complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether these exemptions had been applied correctly. With regard to the information relating to the first request the Commissioner has concluded that although three letters written by the Museum’s Director are exempt on the basis of section 36, the public interest favours withholding only two of these letters. With to the second request, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the British Museum suggested that it was now relying on section 12 of the Act to refuse to answer part of this request. The Commissioner has concluded that section 12 can be correctly relied upon and that some of the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36 and 43 and that the public interest favours withholding this information. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that in respect of the remainder of the information covered by request two the exemptions contained at sections 31 and 43 of the Act are not engaged. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that British Museum breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to state in its refusal notice the specific sub-sections of the exemptions it was relying on to refuse the complainant’s request as well as breaching all the requirements of section 17(5) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 12.
FOI 36: Partly upheld FOI 12: Partly upheld FOI 43: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50169313

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.532731

Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another: Admn 9 Jul 2013

The claimant had requested disclosure of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted government departments. It had been refused, the Attorney General issuing a certificate under section 53(2) after the Upper tribunal had allowed the claimant’s appeal from an initial refusal, stating that he had, on reasonable grounds, formed the opinion that the Departments had been entitled to refuse disclosure of the letters, and set out his reasoning.
Held: The claim for judicial review failed. Section 53 of the Act was an unusual provision giving an executive override or veto of what (in the case of tribunal and court conclusions) would have been a judicial decision. However the language of the section required there to be reasonable grounds for the certifcate, stated cogently and judged objectively. That statutory test should not be glossed with any Wednesbury style test, and nor was the court to substitute its own assessment for that of the minister. ‘Reasonable grounds’ in section 53(2) simply meant grounds which, when viewed on their own, were ‘cogent’, and there was no reason to constrain the expression to exclude the accountable person from forming his own view simply because it differed from that of a court or tribunal.

Judges:

Lord Judge LCJ, Davis LJ, Globe J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin), [2013] 3 WLR 1631, [2013] WLR(D) 313, [2014] 1 CMLR 8, [2014] 1 All ER 23

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 53, Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEvans v Information Commissioner UTAA 18-Sep-2012
The claimant journalist had requested copies of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted public bodies.
Held: ‘The Upper Tribunal allows the appeals by Mr Evans. A further decision identifying information to be disclosed to Mr Evans, . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromEvans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another CA 12-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist had requested disclosure under the 2000 Act of correspondence between the Prince of Wales and government departments. The Upper Tribunal had found that matters where the prince had acted as advocate were disclosable. . .
Appeal fromEvans v The Information Commissioner and Others CA 12-Mar-2014
Mr Evans had sought release under the 2000 Act of leers from the Prince of Wales to variou government ministers. The Upper Tribunal had allowed his appeal aganst refusal, but the Attorney had then issued a certificate that in his opinion, the . .
At AdmnEvans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Constitutional, Administrative

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.512206

Price v Powel and Others: QBD 11 Dec 2012

Claim for damages for misuse of private information, an order requiring the defendants to deliver up copies of documents and an order requiring them to disclose to the claimant the names of persons to whom the information in question has been disclosed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Tugendhat

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3527 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.466973

British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Others: ChD 1 Oct 2012

The claimants alleged misuse by the defendant companies of confidential information taken from its customer database.
Held: The claims failed.

Judges:

Sir William Blackburne

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2642 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBritish Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Others ChD 7-Oct-2011
The parties now disputed whether they had reached a binding agreement settling the principal dispute, which was as to the alleged misuse of confidential information from its customer database. The defendants sought a stay. The claimants said that . .
See AlsoBritish Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Others ChD 27-Oct-2011
The claimants sought summary judgment in their action against the defendants for misuse of confidential information from their customer database.
Held: Summary judgment was granted agains the personal defendants. The two companies and . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBritish Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Others ChD 19-Dec-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.465050

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 25 Jan 2019

The complainant has made a request for information relating to contracts and change form. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50804158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.634903

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 22 Jan 2019

The complainant has requested the legal advice received by NHS England (NHSE) following a meeting with a named doctor. NHSE identified information within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis that the information was legally professionally privileged and therefore exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision, after considering the public interest test, is that NHSE has correctly applied this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the requested information.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50752392

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.634902

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Nov 2013

ICO The complainant requested details of the ICO’s internal complaints procedure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO provided the requested information in accordance with the general right of access to information detailed at s1 FOIA. He does not require any further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50493536

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.528892

Leander v Sweden: ECHR 26 Mar 1987

Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander complained that he should have been provided with the information in question, and should have been given the chance to refute it. He submitted that Article 10 conferred a right of access to Government records and a positive obligation upon the State to disclose the contents of its file to him upon request.
Held: His submission failed. Article 10 did not ‘in circumstances such as those of the present case, confer on an individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position’. Proceedings before an Appeals Board and the possibility of interim injunction proceedings taken together provided the applicants with an effective remedy. Both the storage of private information in a secret police register and its release, coupled with a refusal to allow an opportunity to refute it, were an interference with the right to respect for private life.
‘The Court observes that the right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him. Article 10 does not, in circumstances such as those of the present case, confer on the individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position, nor does it embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the individual.
There has thus been no interference with Mr. Leander’s freedom to receive information, as protected by Article 10.’

Citations:

[1987] 9 EHRR 433, 9248/81, [1987] ECHR 4

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 13

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Howard and Another) v Secretary of State for Health QBD 15-Mar-2002
The applicants sought orders that enquiries into the activities of doctors under the Act should be held in public.
Held: The Act contained no presumption that enquiries should be in public, and the Wagstaff case created no general principle to . .
CitedLorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedBrown v HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, the Executors of the Estate of and others FD 5-Jul-2007
The plaintiff sought the unsealing of the wills of the late Queen Mother and of the late Princess Margaret, claiming that these would assist him establishing that he was the illegitimate son of the latter.
Held: The application was frivolous. . .
CitedMarper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
CitedIn re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
CitedA v Independent News and Media Ltd and Others CA 31-Mar-2010
The newspapers sought leave to report proceedings before the Court of Protection in connection with a patient unable to manage his own affairs. The patient retained a possible capacity to work as a professional musician. The family wanted the . .
CitedEsbester v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Apr-1993
(Commission) The claimant had been refused employment within the Central Office of Information. He had been accepted subject to clearance, but that failed. He objected that he had been given no opportunity to object to the material oin which his . .
CitedHome Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
CitedKennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
AppliedGaskin v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
The applicant complained of ill-treatment while he was in the care of a local authority and living with foster parents. He sought access to his case records held by the local authority but his request was denied.
Held: The refusal to allow him . .
AppliedGuerra and Others v Italy ECHR 19-Feb-1998
(Grand Chamber) The applicants lived about 1km from a chemical factory which produced fertilizers and other chemicals and was classified as ‘high risk’ in criteria set out by Presidential Decree.
Held: Failure by a government to release to an . .
CitedKennedy v Charity Commission CA 20-Mar-2012
The claimant sought disclosure of an investigation conducted by the respondent. The respondent replied that the material was exempt within section 32(2). The court had found that that exemption continued permanently even after the inquiry was . .
CitedAtkinson and Crook and The Independent v United Kingdom ECHR 3-Dec-1990
(European Commission of Human Rights) The Commission answered a question as to admissibility, namely whether the sentencing of a convicted criminal defendant in private infringed article 10. The complainants were two freelance journalists.
CitedTarsasag A Szabadsagjogokert v Hungary ECHR 14-Apr-2009
The court upheld a complaint by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union that, contrary to article 10, it had been refused access to details of a complaint in connection with drugs policy on the basis that details of the complaint could not be released, . .
CitedGuardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
CitedGillberg v Sweden ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a consultant psychiatrist, had conducted research with children under undertakings of absolute privacy. Several years later a researcher, for proper reasons, obtained court orders for the disclosure of the data under . .
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 . .
CitedRoche v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been exposed to harmful chemicals whilst in the Army at Porton Down in 1953. He had wished to claim a service pension on the basis of the ensuing personal injury, but had been frustrated by many years of the . .
CitedRotaru v Romania ECHR 4-May-2000
Grand Chamber – The applicant, a lawyer, complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private life on account of the use against him by the Romanian Intelligence Service of a file which contained information about his conviction for . .
CitedCatt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
CitedAB v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 5-Apr-2017
This appeal is concerned with a challenge to the legality of legislation of the Scottish Parliament which deprives a person, A, who is accused of sexual activity with an under-aged person, B, of the defence that he or she reasonably believed that B . .
CitedHaralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police, Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.164976

Monitor (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested communications between senior staff at Monitor with representatives of McKinsey and Co. and the Department of Health in relation to Regulations under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act. Monitor confirmed that some of the requested information was held, amounting to 4 documents, all of which were being withheld on the basis of section 36(2) and, in one case, section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Monitor has correctly withheld the correspondence it received from the DoH under section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) but the public interest in disclosure outweighs that in maintaining the exemptions in relation to the three – sector reports-?. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the three sector reports dated 15 January 2013, 15 February 2013 and 20 March 2013, with appropriate redactions for personal data under section 40(2) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50499289

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528906

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50507134: ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant requested information recording a review of the credibility of the legal aid system carried out at the behest of the Justice Secretary. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) was cited correctly and so it was not required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50507134

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528905

London School of Economics and Political Science (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information about an MSc research project: the names of the student and supervisor, details of the project and a copy of the published paper. The London School of Economics (LSE) refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. Following an internal review, the LSE also cited section 40(3) (contravenes any of the data protection principles or likely to cause damage or distress) and the condition in section 40(4) (exempt from subject access right). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt under section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50506169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528895

Legal Ombudsman (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information from the Legal Ombudsman about the number of cases in which the Ombudsman agreed with the recommendation of its investigator and the number it disagreed. The Legal Ombudsman applied section 12 to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Legal Ombudsman has correctly applied section 12 to the complainant’s request and he does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50510686

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528893

Liverpool City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested a copy of the Liverpool Direct Limited (‘LDL’) procurement catalogue for goods and services purchased by Liverpool City Council (‘the council’) and the service contracts under taken by LDL for such goods and services. The council initially applied the exemptions at section 41 and 43 of the FOIA to the procurement catalogue and stated that it does not hold copies of the service contracts. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council provided a copy of the procurement catalogue but maintained it did not hold the service contracts. The complainant was not satisfied that the council had provided all information held within the scope of the request. The council has not responded appropriately to the Commissioner’s enquiries and therefore is not in a position to draw a conclusion in this case. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the complainant in respect of both the procurement catalogue and the service contracts between LDL and the council specifically in relation to the information the council holds rather than the information LDL holds.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498386

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528894

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant complained that correspondence he had with the public authority was not a ‘new information request’ rather it was clarification of a previous request and that it should not have been dealt with as such. The Commissioner finds that the correspondence was correctly dealt with as a ‘new information request’. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50503531

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528901

Mid Sussex District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information from Mid Sussex District Council (the council) relating to what he has referred to as its ‘Lying Policy’. The council responded by advising that it does not have such a policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50492560

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528900

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50501793: ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding the basis upon which remaining papers concerning the case of the – ‘Shrewsbury 24’ were retained by the Cabinet Office rather than transferred to The National Archives. The MoJ provided the complainant with the majority of information requested but withheld some material on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies); section 35(1)(a) (government policy); section 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications); section 38(1)(b) (health and safety); section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 40(2) (personal data). The complainant disputed the application of all of the exemptions with the exception of sections 23(1) and 40(2). The Commissioner has concluded that the section 42(1) has been correctly applied and the public interest favours maintaining that exemption. However, although he has found that section 35(1)(a) is engaged, he has concluded that the public interest favours disclosing the information withheld under this exemption. The Commissioner has also concluded that sections 35(1)(b) and 38(1)(b) are not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with the information previously withheld on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b). Provide the complainant with the information previously withheld on the basis of section 38(1)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50501793

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528904

Marine Management Organisation (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant made a request to the Marine Management Organisation (- MMO-?) for details of its guidance in respect of travel and subsistence limits. The MMO supplied some information to the complainant. The complainant complained that it had not fully responded to her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that MMO breached sections 1 and 10 by not informing the complainant that it did not hold information in relation to part of her request and by not disclosing additional information in relation to other parts of her request within 20 working days of the request and by the time of the completion of the internal review. As the MMO disclosed to the complainant the additional information that it held that fell within the scope of her request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, he does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50494284

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528897

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Nov 2013

The complainant requested copies of the marked pages in the A-Z map book located during the Robert Napper murder investigation. The Metropolitan Police Service (‘the MPS’) refused to provide the information by applying the exemption to disclosure in section 30(1) and section 40(2) and (3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS correctly applied the exemption at section 30(1) and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50503169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528898

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information about drugs tests carried out on members of the Household Cavalry Regiment and the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment. The Ministry of Defence (MoD?) made a partial disclosure but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (Unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD is entitled to rely on section 40(2) in the circumstances of this case. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50507241

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528902

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested the complaints handling manual and standard phrases recommended for use by complaints handlers at Her Majesty’s Court Service. After a protracted delay, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ?) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 31(1)(c) (prejudice to the administration of justice), section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 40(2) (unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. It also initially relied on section 41 (information provided in confidence) but withdrew this argument during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to rely on the exemptions it has cited as a basis for withholding most of the requested information. However, it is not entitled to rely on any of the exemptions it has cited in relation to some of the withheld information listed in a Confidential Annex to this Notice. Also, in failing to provide an adequate response within 20 working days, the MoJ contravened the requirements of sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498837

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528903

Marine Management Organisation (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Nov 2013

The complainant made a request to the Marine Management Organisation for the scrutiny of the European Commission (EC) of its data reporting systems, including copies of any relevant reports and responses to reports. The MMO applied regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) and 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) to documents it believed fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MMO has breached regulation 14(3)(a) of the EIR by not issuing a refusal notice stating that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request and citing the exception contained in regulation 12(4)(a) to the entirety of the request. The Commissioner does not require the MMO to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0513087

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528896

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government): ICO 4 Nov 2019

The complainant submitted a request to the FCO seeking information about US border controls. The FCO provided the complainant with a substantive response to that request, albeit nearly a year later, and sought to withhold the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of a number of exemptions. During the FCO’s processing of that request, the complainant submitted a ‘meta-request’ seeking internal email correspondence regarding the processing of his original request. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of this meta-request but explained that it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27 (international relations) of FOIA and it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the meta-request.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50885553

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.650295

Northern Ireland Housing Executive (Central Government): ICO 18 Jul 2019

The complainant requested Options Appraisals relating to tower blocks and information on which Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) based decisions about its stock of tower blocks. NIHE withheld the Options Appraisals under section 36(2)(c)(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that, at the time of the request, the Options Appraisals were exempt information under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA and the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require NIHE to take any remedial steps.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50804032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.643255

Northern Ireland Housing Executive (Central Government): ICO 9 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested any minutes of meetings regarding a specific cavity wall insulation study. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive disclosed some information and withheld the remainder, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (Material in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR appropriately. The Commissioner does not require Northern Ireland Housing Executive to take any steps as a result of this decision.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50813210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.643508

Dyfed Powys Police (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2012

ICO The complainant requested the current rank and role of a named individual including possible roles as a support officer or probationer. Dyfed Powys Police (DPP) refused to confirm or deny if it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that DPP applied section 40(5) correctly and is not therefore required to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0087 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50402281

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 40(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.529291

Bristol City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 May 2009

ICO The complainant requested information concerning the council’s agreement to build new secondary schools under the government’s Building Schools for the Future programme (BSF). He initially requested information concerning the procurement of information technology services (ICT) for the schools but details of the costs were withheld by the council via section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the Act. Because the council maintained that it was bound by a confidentiality agreement with the contractor to withhold details of the ICT costs, the complainant requested evidence of the council’s consideration to accept confidentiality requirements in the contract. The council refused that request via section 12(1) (appropriate limit) of the Act. The council later submitted that it did not have an agreement with the contractor but that it had one with the local education partnership (LEP) instead. The complainant therefore asked for a copy of that agreement. This request was also refused via section 41(1) and section 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the council’s agreement with the LEP to manage the delivery of the BSF programme was environmental information. Consequently, the council withheld details of the agreement via the Environmental Information Regulations, namely, regulations 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and 12(5)(f) (information provided in confidence). In relation to the initial request the Commissioner ascertained that the council did hold the information concerning the ICT procurement costs for its schools and that it incorrectly applied the exemption at section 41(1) of the Act. He decided that the exemption at section 43(2) applied in relation to some of the information but that the public interest favours disclosure. In relation to the request for evidence of the council’s acceptance of a confidentiality agreement with the contractor, the Commissioner decided that the council incorrectly applied the exemption at section 12(1). In relation to the request for a copy of the council’s agreement with the LEP, the Commissioner decided that the council incorrectly applied the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50164262

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532022

Office of Government Commerce (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Jul 2008

ICO The complainant requested access to all of the documents held by the Office of Government Commerce with regard to the ministerial direction issued by the Secretary of State for Defence to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence on 30 July 2003, which concerned the order of 20 Hawk jet trainer aircraft. The complainant was provided with a redacted letter from the OGC Chief Executive to the Deputy Prime Minister dated 11 July 2003 (the July letter). The public authority refused to disclose the withheld parts of this letter, initially citing sections 35 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and later claiming sections 26 and 29. After a careful evaluation of the requested information, the submissions of the parties and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not properly applied sections 26 and 35 of the Act. With regard to sections 29 and 43, the Commissioner found that the OGC had correctly applied the exemptions to parts of the information, but that it was in the public interest to partially disclose other parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the OGC to disclose to the Complainant a version of the July letter with fewer redactions than applied in the version already disclosed. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority had breached section 17(1) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2008/0068) has been withdrawn.
FOI 29: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50093000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532690