Category: Information

Russell and East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 22 Sep 2011

SIC This decision considers whether East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs) in responding to information request made by Ms Russell.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 191 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.447395

Suffolk County Council (Local Government): ICO 8 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information held by Suffolk County Council on the proposal to build a bypass in Sudbury. The information requested included correspondence with consultants, government departments and other parties on the bypass as well as a copy of the Business Plan. The Council provided information in response to the request but the complainant considered further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance, the Council has complied with the request and fulfilled its obligations under the EIR by providing the information within the scope of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50721134

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.617535

Huntingdonshire District Council (Local Government): ICO 25 Sep 2018

The complainant has requested information about a building fire that occurred in 1999. Huntingdonshire District Council responded by denying that it holds the requested information, but directed the complainant to another public authority that may hold some of it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50730915

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.628418

Ben Henderson and Perth and Kinross Council: SIC 5 Jan 2012

Mr Ben Henderson asked Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for (a) information relating to the actions and practices of Building Standards staff which resulted in recent disciplinary action, and (b) information on actions or practices of staff in the past which gave reason for suspicion that Council staff, particularly those from the Building Standards and Planning section, may have been involved in similar actions or practices prior to the current case. The Council refused to disclose the information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 30(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) and 38(1)(b) (personal data) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Mr Henderson remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had partially failed to deal with Mr Henderson’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that by applying the exemption in section 38(1)(b) of FOISA to all of the withheld information, which fell within scope of part (a) of Mr Henderson’s request, the Council complied with Part 1.
However, in failing to notify Mr Henderson that it does not (and did not at the time of Mr Henderson’s request) hold any relevant recorded information which would address part (b) of his request, the Council failed to comply with Part 1 and in particular section 17(1) of FOISA. Since this decision makes the position clear on this point, the Commissioner did not require the Council to take any action in relation to this breach.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 003 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.451505

Glen Cawthra and Orkney Islands Council: SIC 9 Oct 2014

SIC On 4 June 2014, Mr Cawthra asked Orkney islands Council (the Council) for information relating to a specified route over a period of 15 years. The Council provided Mr Cawthra with some information, but informed him that it was not obliged to comply with his request as the cost of doing so would be more than andpound;600.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner concluded that there was insufficient evidence to allow her to accept the Council’s cost estimate. She required the Council to give another response to Mr Cawthra’s request.

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 219 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.538106

North Dorset District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Aug 2012

The complainant wrote to North Dorset District Council (the council) to request information about the circumstances and terms of the departure of a named individual from the council’s employment. The council refused to disclose the requested information relying on section 40(2) and also section 41 as it was confidential personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. He therefore does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50434463

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.529759

Kent Police (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Jul 2011

ICO The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) to Kent Police (the ‘public authority’) for information about a mapping system which it had ceased to use in 2004. The public authority provided some general comments but stated that no further information was held. The Commissioner has considered the arguments put forward by the public authority and his decision is that the public authority has demonstrated that, on the balance of probability, it holds no further information. The complaint is not upheld. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0153 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50382415

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.530663

HM Treasury (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2011

The complainant requested the briefing information provided by Treasury officials to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, in the first 24 hour period after his appointment as Chancellor on 12 May 2010. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) correctly withheld the information requested under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50368608

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.531078

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information, including a report, about four named police officers. The Crown Prosecution Service applied section 40(5), which it changed to section 40(2) at internal review. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service’s original application of section 40(5) appropriately. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0208 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435430

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.529811

B v Scottish Court Service: SIC 17 Sep 2013

On 27 October 2012, Mr and Mrs B (the Bs) made a request to the Scottish Court Service (SCS) information concerning a court case at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court. The SCS informed the Bs that the information was exempt from disclosure. On 20 November 2012, the Bs submitted a further request for information to the SCS regarding the same court case and the SCS responded to it a few days later. Following a review of the SCS’s responses to both requests, the Bs remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision
After investigation, the Commissioner found that that the SCS was entitled to withhold all the information covered by the request of 27 October 2012 under section 37(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of FOISA. The Commissioner found that the SCS did not hold any information covered by the request of 20 November 2012, but had failed to give the Bs notice to this effect as required by section 17(1) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 207 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.516078

FL v Registrar General: FD 24 May 2010

The claimant sought disclosure of information held by the respondent as to the identities of her pre-adoptive natural parents.

Judges:

Roderic Wood J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3520 (Fam), [2011] 2 FCR 229, [2011] Fam Law 453, [2011] 2 FLR 630

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002, Family Proceedings Adoption Rules 2005 105(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – X (Adopted Child: Access To Court File) FC 9-Sep-2014
The applicant’s father had been adopted. Both he and the adopting parents had since died. The applicant now sought disclosure of the records to reveal her the court record of her father’s adoption order.
Held: The order should be made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.430381

Wealden District Council (Local Government): ICO 30 Jan 2018

The complainant requested information held by Wealden District Council relating to its five year housing land supply and a meeting that took place on 26 October 2015. The council initially withheld information under section 42 of the FOIA (legal professional privilege). After reconsideration of the request under the EIR, the council identified additional information relevant to the request, some of which it then supplied to the complainant. The council applied regulation 13 -personal data, regulation 12(4)(e)-internal communications, and regulation 12(5)(b)-course of justice, to the remaining information. After further intervention by the Commissioner, the council then supplied the complainant with information that had been withheld under regulation 13. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) and 12 (5)(b) with regards to the remaining withheld information. However, she has found the council to have breached regulations 14(1) and 14(2) by failing to provide a refusal notice that complied with the provisions contained within the EIR. It has also breached regulation 5(2) as it did not provide the complainant with copies of all relevant information within the prescribed time of 20 working days. As it appears it has now provided the complainant with all relevant information, it has complied with regulation 5(1).
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 13: Complaint upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 14(2): Complaint not upheld EIR 14(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0664513

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.617432

Wealden District Council (Local Government): ICO 11 Sep 2018

The complainant has requested information from Wealden District Council which is relates to an Excess Charge Notice – ECN102515, which he received on 8 August 2016. The Council has refused to comply with the complainant’s request in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA, on the grounds that the request is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wealden District Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 14(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50717041

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.628476

Metropolitan Police v Information Commissioner: IT 30 Mar 2009

Section 30(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000: matters of public interest in relation to lists of informants held by Appellant in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century – exceptional nature of public interest in preventing disclosure of informants’ names, past, present and future – redaction

Citations:

[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0078

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.373740

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 27 Mar 2002

The applicant sought damages for the defendant having infringed her privacy in several ways, including under the 1998 Act. The defendant argued that she had invited publicity and had misled the public as to her drug problem. A photograch had been taken as she left a drug rehabilitation group meeting.
Held: The fact that she was receiving treatment for her addiction was sensitive personal information under the Data Protection Act, and had the mark and badge of confidentiality. The three requirements in the first data protection principle under section 4 of the 1998 Act were cumulative. Compensation was governed by section 13, and ‘damage’ in sections 13(1) and 13(2)(a) meant special or financial damages not distress in the shape of injury to feelings. The defendant had shown a proper public interest in disclosing her addiction, but not the nature and occasion of her treatment.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Morland

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002, [2002] EWHC 499 (QB), [2003] QB 633

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 4 13 Sch 3, European Convention on Human Rights 8 10.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers plc CA 14-Oct-2002
The newspaper appealed against a finding that it had infringed the claimant’s privacy by publishing a photograph of her leaving a drug addiction clinic.
Held: The claimant had courted publicity, and denied an involvement in drugs. The defence . .
Approved – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 3-Mar-2006
The claimant sought disclosure under the 1998 Act by the defendant of records held by them. The respondent said that the information they held did not amount to data under the Act.
Held: The information was contained in different formats, on . .
At First Instance – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
At First Instance – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-2008
The Mirror had published a picture of Naomi Campbell leaving a rehabilitation clinic. They appealed a decision in which having been found to have infringed her privacy by a covertly taken photograph, they had then been ordered to pay very . .
At First Instance – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.170154

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 20 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested information about an ongoing payment dispute he has with the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any information citing section 40(5)(a) and (b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to rely on 40(5)(a) and he requires no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50599955

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.555909

Attorney Generals Office (Central Government): ICO 20 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested information regarding applications for contempt against media organisations under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The Attorney General’s Office applied section 12. The complainant did not complain about the application of section 12, but did complain that the Attorney General’s Office had not provided him with enough advice and assistance under section 16 (the duty to provide advice and assistance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Attorney General’s Office did provide enough advice and assistance and has therefore not breached section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Attorney General’s Office to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50574020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.555874

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 30 Nov 2017

The complainant requested information relating to disabled refugees. By the date of this notice, the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50697498

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.602416

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 29 Nov 2017

The complainant requested information about the individuals scheduled to have been deported on charter flights to two named African countries on specified dates. The Home Office confirmed that it held the relevant information but withheld some of it relying on the FOIA exemptions in sections 31(1)(e) (law enforcement as it relates to the operation of the immigration controls) and 27 (international relations). The Home Office extended the response period to conduct a public interest balancing test but has still not completed the test. The Commissioner decided that, although it has complied with section 17(1) FOIA in stating which exemptions are to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test consideration within a reasonable time period the Home Office had breached section 17(3) FOIA. The Commissioner also found breaches of sections 1(1) and 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose now the information it holds that is not subject to the exemptions applied, and; issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the withheld information or issuing a refusal notice which includes the outcome of the public interest considerations.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50698716

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.602417

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 25 Jul 2017

The complainant has requested information about agreements, licences and memorandums of understanding (‘MOUs’) between the Home Office and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘KSA’). The Home Office disclosed some information about a particular MOU and also certain import/export licences. It withheld the remaining information in connection with the MOU under the exemptions at sections 24(1) (national security) and 27(1)(a) (international relations), and it withheld information about the import/export licenses under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any other information falling within scope of the request, citing section 27(4)(a) and (b) (international relations) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 27(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold information about the MOU. It was also entitled to rely on section 27(4) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held further information. However, the Home Office did not apply the section 43(2) exemption correctly. It also breached section 10(1) by failing to comply with section 1(1) within the time for compliance, and section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice within the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a fresh response to part (iv) of the request. The information should either be disclosed or a further refusal notice provided which is compliant with section 17 of the FOIA and which does not rely on section 43(2) of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 27: Not upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50666028

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.593858

Thanet District Council (Local Government): ICO 7 Sep 2018

The complainant requested information about representations that the Council had made to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and its predecessor department. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thanet District Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0746785

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.628469

Hackney London Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 5 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) information concerning its considered usage of the site Audrey Street Depot E2 8QH for educational purposes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. Therefore, she does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50683394

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.617472

Thanet District Council (Local Government): ICO 12 Apr 2019

The complainant has requested information pertaining to Thanet District Council’s review of the Port of Ramsgate and related plans for increased commercial shipping capacity following Brexit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50822279

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.638126

Thanet District Council (Local Government): ICO 8 Oct 2018

The complainant requested information about parking charge revenues. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thanet District Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50790942

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.628543

Thanet District Council (Local Government): ICO 13 Jul 2018

The complainant requested information about the number of councillors and members of the corporate management team who had been in arrears on their council tax. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thanet District Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50737168

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.621383

Westminster City Council (Local Government): ICO 25 Jan 2018

The complainant has requested information on a complete and up-to-date list of all business (non-residential) property rates data held by Westminster Council under the FOI Act (‘the Act’). The council applied section 31(1)(a) of the Act to the information stating that it would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime to disclose the information because it would provide details which would facilitate the commission of fraud against the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 31(1)(a) of the Act was engaged however the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that in the exemption being maintained. The council was therefore not correct to withhold the information under section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 31: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50681283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.617433

Thanet District Council (Local Government): ICO 27 Jul 2018

The complainant requested copies of information provided to a specific firm for the purposes of carrying out a valuation on a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thanet District Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50759387

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.621384

Hackney London Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 18 May 2018

The complainant made a request for information on 17 January 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hackney failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to request number FOI18-0117-18426.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50738437

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.617798

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 13 Jan 2015

ICO The complainant requested information in relation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) air strikes in Serbia and Kosovo in March 1999. The Commissioner decided the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and section 42(1) FOIA to withhold information within the scope of the request. He also decided that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 23(5) and 24(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of sections 23(1) and 24(1) FOIA. Furthermore, that the public authority was also entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(3) 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 35(1)(b) FOIA. The Commissioner however found the public authority in breach of section 10(1) FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld FOI 27: Not upheld FOI 35: Not upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50528132

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.554694

Three Rivers District Council (Local Government): ICO 12 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information from Three Rivers District Council about parking permits. Three Rivers District Council has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Three Rivers District Council to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Three Rivers District Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-75478

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.658020

NHS England (Health): ICO 20 Jan 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to the abandonment of the procurement of services. NHS England has failed to provide a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has failed to respond to the complainant’s request of 28 July 2020 within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. NHS England must provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-77384

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.658004

Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 15 Jan 2021

The complainant has requested from The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) the margin achieved in relation to income from private patients from 2015 to 2019. The Trust provided some information but refused to provide the information concerning profit margins, citing section 43(2) FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the information to the complainant that was withheld under section 43(2).
FOI 43: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-44907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.658012

Lloyd v Google Llc: CA 2 Oct 2019

Claimants, on behalf of millions of Apple users, challenged the collection by the defendant of details of their internet activity. The claimant did not have instructions from other users, and Google objected that there was no evidence of distress in any claimant.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge ought to have held: (a) that a claimant can recover damages for loss of control of their data under section 13 of DPA, without proving pecuniary loss or distress, and (b) that the members of the class that Mr Lloyd seeks to represent did have the same interest under CPR Part 19.6(1) and were identifiable.

Judges:

Dame Victoria Sharp P QBD, Sir Geoffrey Vos Chancellor, David LJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1599

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.641797

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested information concerned with medical treatment that her late father received from the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust correctly relied on section 14(1) as a basis for not complying with the complainant’s request for information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0124 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421679

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529527

Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to gas safety certificates and details of costs associated with the cemetery and memorial area of a specific road. The council asked the complainant to pay a fee of pounds 25 for provision of the information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the council provided the information to the complainant electronically. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to issue a valid fees notice and failed to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 9 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50433035

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529841

Newcastle City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information relating to a planning matter. The council provided some information and said that it did not hold other information. The complainant disputed that this was the case. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council did not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0434454

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529756

Shotteswell Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested minutes of any meetings where the parish council had discussed the removal of signs which had been erected on a footpath by the county council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shotteswell Parish Council did not respond to the complainant under the correct legislation. The information is environmental information and the council should have responded to the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. He has also decided that the council breached the Act in that it did not respond to the complainant within 20 working days as required by regulation 5(2). As the information has now been disclosed to the Commissioner he has not ordered any steps within this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50436024

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529528

Sport England (Decision Notice): ICO 29 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested detailed information about 1,269 amateur basketball clubs which had been awarded grants by Sport England. Sport England calculated that the request could not be complied with without exceeding the appropriate costs limit, and that the exemption at section 12 applied. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Sport England was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA, as to determine whether or not the information was held would exceed the appropriate limit. However, he also found that Sport England breached section 16 by failing to offer the complainant reasonable assistance with reducing the scope of his request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0139 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435086

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529531

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested emails between an FCO official and a named company. FCO provided some information but withheld other information relying on the section 27(1), 40(2), 41(1), 42(1), and 43(2) FOIA exemptions. A further small amount of information was disclosed during the Commissioner’s investigation and FCO also withdrew from its reliance on section 43 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that FCO has applied the section 27(1), 40(2), 41(1) FOIA exemptions correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require FCO to take any further action to comply with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50500588

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.528876

Southwark Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested information on schools attendance at a specific leisure centre. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Southwark Council did not hold the information requested. However, the Commissioner finds the Council in breach of section 10(1) in failing to notify the complainant within twenty working days of the request that it did not hold the information.
Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0125 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50428799

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529529

Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information that relates to complaints he has made. The public authority has stated that the request is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner finds the request to be vexatious and, furthermore, he considers that any information would be the complainant’s ‘personal data’. This is because any information held would all relate to complaints he has made and it is therefore also exempt by virtue of the exemption at section 40(1). The exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) should therefore have been applied which means that the public authority was not required to confirm or deny whether it holds any information under the Act. The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0214 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50442276

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529818

Carle and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 31 May 2007

Minutes of pay negotiations – whether disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation or would otherwise prejudice substantially, or be likely to prejudice substantially, the effective conduct of public affairs

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 084 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.434348

Sugar v Information Commissioner: IT 14 May 2009

Citations:

[2009] UKIT EA – 2005 – 0032

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Citing:

See Also – Sugar v Information Commissioner IT 29-Aug-2006
IT At this preliminary hearing the Tribunal finds that at the time of the request made by Mr Sugar to the BBC for a copy of the Balen Report it was held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or . .
See Also – Sugar v Information Commissioner IT 29-Aug-2006
The Preliminary Issue before the Information Tribunal
The Tribunal decided on 2 March 2006, under its rule 10 procedure (summary disposal of appeals – The Information Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2005 (the Rules), in the absence of the . .
See Also – British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 27-Apr-2007
The applicant sought publication of a report prepared for the respondent as to the even handedness of its reporting of matters in the middle east. The BBC had refused saying that the release of the report would have direct impact on its ability to . .
See Also – Sugar and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) CA 25-Jan-2008
The court upheld Davis J’s decision that neither the Commissioner nor the Tribunal had had any jurisdiction to entertain Mr Sugar’s challenges to the BBC’s refusal to disclose the Balen report. . .
At HL – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another HL 11-Feb-2009
The Corporation had commissioned a report as to its coverage of Middle East issues. The claimant requested a copy, and the BBC refused saying that the report having been obtained for its own journalistic purposes, and that it was not covered by the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 2-Oct-2009
Disclosure was sought of a report prepared by the BBC to assess the balance of its coverage of middle east affairs. The BBC said that the information was not held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature. One issue was whether . .
At IT – Sugar v The British Broadcasting Commission and Another (No 2) CA 23-Jun-2010
The respondent had had prepared a report as to the balance of its reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Earlier proceedings had established that the purposes of the holding of the reporting included jurnalism. The claimant now appealed . .
At IT – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Media

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383848

Calland v Information Commissioner and The Financial Services Authority: IT 8 Aug 2008

The claimant, being in a prolonged dispute with the Authority had requested copies (internal and external) of correspondence and other communications relating to him. The request was resisted on several grounds according to the nature of the documents involved. The issue now was as to the availability of legal professional privilege where the lawyer involved was in house.
Held: The documents were communications with FSA lawyers, solicitors and barristers, and fell within the associated exemption, because as regulated lawyers they were subject to the same professional regulations as lawyers in independent practice.

Judges:

Farrer QC

Citations:

[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0136

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 42

Citing:

Cited – AM and S Europe Ltd v Commission of The European Communities ECJ 18-May-1982
The court set out the rationale for legal professional privilege: ‘Whether it is described as the right of the client or the duty of the lawyer, this principle has nothing to do with the protection or privilege of the lawyer. It springs essentially . .
Cited – Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission ECFI 17-Sep-2007
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Documents seized in the course of an investigation – Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients – Admissibility. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383898

Student Loans Company Ltd v Information Commissioner: IT 17 Jul 2009

Exemption under FOIA s36(2)(c) – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs – late claim – opinion of qualified person formed after time when request was dealth with – whether evidence of authorisation of qualified person pursuant to FOIA s36(5)(o) – Exemption under FOIA s43 – prejudice to commercial interests – meaning of ‘commercial interests’ – Public iNterest under FOIA s2(2)(b) – nature of balance which Tribunal is required to consider.

Citations:

[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0092

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 36(2) 43 2

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383860