Category: Information

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v Information Commissioner (The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009): FTTGRC 27 Aug 2013

By consent disclosure of name of company licensed to import cannabis.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 2013 – 0075 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.514758

Home Office and Another v The Information Commissioner: Admn 6 Jul 2009

The court considered an application for information under the Act about how the respondent had made its decisions on previous requests for information.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1611 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Cited by:

Cited – The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police v The Information Commissioner Admn 21-Jan-2011
A journalist sought information from the appellant as to illegal firearms, and gun crime. The appellant said it would take many hours to prepare the information sought in a disclosable form, saying that the time taken to redact the information . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347442

Mr Billy Briggs and Lothian Health Board (Contract Information): SIC 24 Jan 2017

Lothian Health Board (NHS Lothian) was asked for contract information relating to the construction of the new Royal Hospital for Sick Children and the adjacent Department of Clinical Neurosciences. NHS Lothian withheld some of the information requested on the basis that it was exempt in terms of various provisions of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that NHS Lothian had considered the request under the wrong legislation. The requested information was environmental information and so NHS Lothian should have considered it under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).
The Commissioner required NHS Lothian to respond to the request under the EIRs.

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 013 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.578902

Office for Standards In Education (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Dec 2008

Following his request for information relating to child day care settings in England, the complainant requested the names of the Person in Charge for each setting. Ofsted refused to supply the requested information on the basis that it constituted personal information and therefore section 40(2) of the Act applied. Following its internal review Ofsted argued that the information was not collated and would require it to undertake new work in order to create it. Ofsted therefore concluded that the information was not held. The Commissioner has determined that information relevant to the request is held on Ofsted’s RSA database and that Ofsted breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner has considered the arguments advanced by Ofsted in support of the application of section 40(2). He has determined that the provision of the requested information would not breach either the first or second data protection principle and therefore section 40(2) was inappropriately cited. Consequently Ofsted have breached section 1(1)(b) of the Act.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 40: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50090869

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.532790

Denbighshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2011

The complainant requested information about the North Hoyle Offshore Wind Farm Community Benefit Fund. The public authority originally stated that it did not hold the requested information but refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was vexatious and repeated. At the internal review stage the public authority stated that it did not hold the requested information but maintained the requested was vexatious and repeated. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority withdrew its reliance on section 14(1) and 14(2) of the Act and said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner considered on balance of probabilities whether the information requested was held by the public authority and determined that it was not. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0211 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50382825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.530721

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50458830: ICO 12 Nov 2012

The complainant requested the number of deaf and/or disabled sports panellists who have appeared on the BBC programme ‘Question of Sport’ and the number of deaf and/or mobility impaired contestants who have appeared on the BBC programme ‘ COPYCATS’. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50458830

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.529973

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50462592: ICO 12 Nov 2012

The complainant requested the number of deaf and/or disabled sports panellists who have appeared on the BBC programme ‘Question of Sport’ and the number of deaf and/or mobility impaired contestants who have appeared on the BBC programme COPYCATS’. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50462592

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.529974

Kent County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information about a debt owed to the council by her mother’s estate following the death of her mother. The council has refused to provide the information on the grounds that section 41 of the Act applies (information held under a duty of confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council has correctly applied section 41 to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50494253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.528775

Liverpool City Council (Decision Notice) FS50442312: ICO 24 Jan 2013

The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (the council) about the third party clients of Liverpool Direct Limited (LDL). The council said that it did not hold the requested information but this statement was not accepted by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held and therefore the council responded appropriately to this request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50442312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.527841

Liverpool City Council (Decision Notice) FS50442314: ICO 24 Jan 2013

The complainant requested information concerning prices, income, costs, expenses, etc. that Liverpool City Council (the council) received from) Liverpool Direct Ltd (LDL) and related information. The Commissioner’s decision is that there is no further information held by the council that has not been supplied to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50442314

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.527842

Stefan v Bundesministerium fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft: ECJ 8 May 2014

ECJ Order Of The Court – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 2003/4/EC – Validity – Public access to environmental information – Exception to the obligation to disclose environmental information where the disclosure compromises the ability of any person to receive a fair trial – Optional nature of that exception for Member States – Article 6 TEU – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter

Judges:

Safjan P

Citations:

C-329/13, [2014] EUECJ C-329/13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2003/4/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Information, Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.525528

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice): ICO 22 May 2012

The complainant requested information relating to the return of two Congolese nationals from the UK on 13 March 2009, as reported in a Guardian newspaper article on 28 May 2009. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) refused the requests as vexatious citing section 14(1) of FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’) decision is that the FCO correctly categorised the requests as obsessive and as having no serious purpose or value in accordance with section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421690

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.529485

S and Marper v The United Kingdom, (Legal Summary): ECHR 4 Dec 2008

Respect for private life
Retention of fingerprints and DNA information in cases where defendant in criminal proceedings is acquitted or discharged: violation

Citations:

30566/04, 30562/04

Links:

HUDOC

Statutes:

European Convetion on Human Rights 8.1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Press Release – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Feb-2008
Grand Chamber – Press Release – The applicant complained of the retention by the police of DNA and fingerprint records – The applicants both complain about the retention of their fingerprints and DNA samples and the fact that they are being used in . .

Cited by:

Legal Summary – Marper 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police, Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.640864

National Archives (Central Government) FS50790559: ICO 10 Jun 2019

The complainant has requested information about a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) refused to disclose the information citing the exemptions in sections 41(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 41(1) – provided in confidence to the withheld information. The Commissioner found that TNA breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50790559

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.639181

National Archives (Central Government) FS50796980: ICO 10 Jun 2019

The complainant has requested information about a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) refused to disclose the information citing the exemption in section 41(1) of the FOIA – information provided in confidence. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 41(1) to the majority of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the final 2 pages of the file IR40/4329: the Financial News article dated 11 April 1924 and the Parliamentary Question from Hansard (10 April 1924).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 41: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO c

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.639182

Greater Manchester Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 11 Jan 2018

The complainant has requested a copy of all reports to the Greater Manchester Police service by a named clinical forensic psychiatrist in relation to the police search for, and arrest of, Dale Cregan in 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that Greater Manchester Police has correctly withheld the requested information relying on the section 31(1) FOIA law enforcement exemption. She also found that the police had breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require the Greater Manchester Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50669281

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.617361

Walters v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 23 Jan 2015

Whether the public authority complied with the Appellant’s request for information, pursuant to s.1(2) of FOIA or Reg. 5(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Held: The Tribunal concludes that the public authority complied with the Appellant’s request. It therefore dismisses the appeal.

Citations:

[2015] UKFTT 2014 – 0256 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.542199

Sussex Police (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2013

The complainant submitted a request to Sussex Police for information relating to its primary custody policy. By the date of this notice Sussex Police had yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police breached section 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police issue a response under the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498847

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.528823

Denbighshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Nov 2011

The complainant requested information relating to property search information and charging under various regulations. The Council stated that no information was held which fell within the scope of some parts of the complainant’s request. The Council withheld other information by virtue of section 41(1) of the Act, and refused to furnish the Commissioner with a copy of the disputed information under section 51(5) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and determined that some of the requests were for environmental information, and should have been considered under the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider these parts of the request under the EIR and either disclose the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 of the EIR. In respect of the information that is not considered to be environmental, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50372234

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.531059

Bank of England (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2013

The complainant requested information about the Joint Operating Board for the Funding for Lending Scheme. The Bank of England (BoE) explained that the information was not caught by FOIA because it was held for the purposes of its functions with respect to monetary policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information relates to monetary policy and the financial operations intended to support financial institutions for the purposes of maintaining stability and does not fall under FOIA. He does not therefore require the BoE to take any further steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50511656

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.528722

Denbighshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2013

The complainant requested various items of information in respect of persons with no permanent address being placed in hotels, guesthouses and hostels by Denbighshire County Council (DCC) for the period from 1 August 2011 to 31 December 2012. DCC provided some information but refused information relating to names and addresses of the accommodation by virtue of section 38(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCC has correctly relied on section 38(1)(a) of the FOIA in this instance. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498415

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.528741

Webster and Others v The Governors of the Ridgeway Foundation School: QBD 21 May 2009

The first claimant had been severely beaten as he left school. He and his parents also claimed post traumatic stress. They alleged that the school had been negligent in having allowed racial tensions to develop. The claimant was white, and his attackers Asian. The claimants sought disclosure of the school’s disciplinary records unredacted so that the racial origins could be identified. The school, reacted saying that beyond disclosing the names of the attackers, the remaining names were protected by confidence.
Held: Some requests were too wide to satisfy the need for certainty. Others would require specific justification to support the interference with the particular privacy of children.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1140 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kenny, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds Magistrates Court, Leeds City Council Admn 5-Dec-2003
In cases involving children, Article 3 provides that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, not the primary consideration.
The court looked at the test for making an interim ASBO: ‘Consideration of whether it is just to . .
Cited – Todd v Crown Prosecution Service; T v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another; Todd v DPP QBD 6-Oct-2003
The defendant had been under 18 at the commencement of proceedings but attained 18 during them. The newspaper was granted leave to refer to him by name upon his becoming 18.
Held: Denying the appeal. The balance between the freedom of the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Webster and Others v Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 5-Feb-2010
The claimant had been severely injured when attacked at school. He was a white youth, and his attackers all Asian. The school had a history of inter-racial tension, and he claimed in negligence, and that they had failed to protect his human right . .
See Also – Webster and Others v The Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 2-Mar-2010
The court considered whether costs should be payable on a standard or indemnity basis. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Human Rights, Education, Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346752

Maccaba v Lichtenstein (expectation of Privacy): QBD 2 Jul 2004

Gray J considered whether an expectation of privacy arose in a letter sent to another person: ‘as a general rule correspondence between A and B on private matters such as their feelings for one another would be a prime candidate for protection.’

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1579 (QB), [2005] EMLR 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein QBD 15-Apr-2003
Claims in slander, harassment and breach of confidence. . .
See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein (No Special Damage) QBD 2-Jul-2004
Ruling on the application by the Defendant that judgment be entered in his favour in relation to the claim against him in slander. The basis of the application is in short that no special damage is alleged to have been suffered by the Claimant and . .
See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein (Privilege) QBD 2-Jul-2004
Ruling on the question whether the slanders of which the Claimant complains in this action were uttered by the Defendant on occasions protected by qualified privilege. . .
Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.658106

Royal Borough of Greenwich (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Nov 2011

The complainant wrote to the London Borough of Greenwich (the Council’) and requested the following information: information about the council’s discussions with the Commissioner regarding a complaint which had been submitted by the complainant. The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner) decision is that the council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA in the following way: it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50412583

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.531105

Department for Communities and Local Government (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Sep 2006

The complainant made a request for a copy of the Planning Inspector’s report of a public inquiry held into proposed motorway service areas on the M1 and A1M in North Yorkshire. The Planning Inspectorate withheld the report until the planning decision had been made, on the basis that it was an internal communication under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner decided that the Planning Inspectorate had applied regulation 12(4)(e) correctly and that the public interest was best served by maintaining the exception from the requirement to release information in regulation 5(1) of those regulations.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FER0071457

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.533545

Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jan 2009

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on 13 May 2008 to the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. The complainant requested information relating to extremist activity at Bradford University over the previous two years. DIUS failed to respond to this request despite repeated reminders to do so. The Commissioner has therefore decided that DIUS failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and must now do so within 35 days of the date of this notice. Furthermore the Commissioner also found that the DIUS failed to comply with the time for compliance set out at section 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50204957

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.531916

National Audit Office (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant requested copies of information received by the public authority from the Environment Agency and other agencies, related to Whitburn Pumping Station. The public authority refused to disclose the information, relying upon regulations 13(2)(a)(i) and 12(5)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner upholds the application of regulation 12(5)(a).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.a – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0319747

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.530372

Homes and Communities Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Jan 2013

The complainant requested legal advice relating to a development agreement regarding the former Odeon cinema in Bradford. The Homes and Communities Agency refused the request under section 42 of the FOIA as the information attracted legal professional privilege. At the time of the internal review HCA considered that the request may fall under the provisions of the EIR and sought to also apply regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HCA also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) as the basis to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the correct access regime is the EIR and HCA correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0456332

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.527831

Cheshire West and Chester Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Feb 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to any individuals paid via a company set up for tax purposes. The Commissioner has decided that Cheshire West and Chester Council (the Council) breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a response within the statutory time limit of 20 working days. No further action is required to be taken as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50467979

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.527932

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2013

The complainant requested information relating to the departure of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s former Strategic Director of Resources, Mr B. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has properly applied Section 40(2) to all of the information sought by the complaint with the exception of the payments the council made to Mr B. The Commissioner has decided that the council incorrectly applied Section 40(2) to the information it holds about the payments it made to Mr B on leaving the council’s employment. The council has now disclosed details of these payments in its statement of accounts. The council is therefore not required to comply with the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50492208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.528811

Imperial College London (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to a recruitment process carried out by Imperial College London. The Commissioner’s decision is that Imperial College London (ICL) has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA when withholding the information requested. The Commissioner does not require ICL to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50468486

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.528104

Valuation Office Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Apr 2012

The complainant requested the sales values and dates of sales for a number of properties in Creech St Michael, Somerset. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Act). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50427243

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.529436

Isle of Wight Council (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information regarding Councillor Pugh’s responses to email enquiries from members of the public in a specific time frame. The council refused to provide the requested information as it considered that it would exceed the appropriate limit to do so and that section 12 therefore applied.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50461554

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.528106

Homes and Communities Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to a plaque that used to feature on the Bradford Odeon cinema (Bradford Odeon). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) has complied with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and does not hold any information relevant to the complainant’s requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0445564

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.530017

Havering London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2013

The complainant requested information about complaints, accidents and enquiries concerning low hanging or dangerous trees or branches within a specified timescale. London Borough of Havering (the Council) said that it could not be provided without exceeding the costs limit under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner considers that section 12 of FOIA was applied correctly in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50500264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.528760

Homes and Communities Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested a copy of an independent investigation report relating to a proposed merger between a housing group and a housing trust. The Homes and Communities Agency refused the request, citing the exemption for information provided in confidence (section 41 of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Homes and Communities Agency has correctly withheld the information under 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50509263

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.527364

ESL Fuels Ltd v Fletcher and Another: ChD 27 Nov 2013

Application for interim injunctive relief pending the speedy trial of a claim as to what is said to be confidential information in the nature of trade secrets, although that characterisation is disputed by the defendants; and it is that dispute which lies at the heart of this case.

Judges:

Hodge QC HHJ

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3726 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.519660

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 26 Jul 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for an updated version of the ‘G-cloud’ dataset and details of its future publication schedule for this dataset. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 22(1) of FOIA in its refusal notice and then subsequently relied on section 21(1) of FOIA in its internal review as an updated version of this dataset had now been published. The complainant disagreed with the application of both of these exemptions, complained about the time it took the Cabinet office to respond to the request, raised concerns about the accuracy of the dataset which had been published and complained that the Cabinet Office had failed, in response to his request, to provide information about the future publication schedule for this dataset. The Commissioner has concluded that sections 22(1) and 21(1) do not apply to the request and that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Cabinet Office did hold any information about the future publication schedule for this dataset at the point the request was submitted and that the complainant’s concerns about the accuracy of the data published are not ones that fall to be considered under section 50 of FOIA.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 21: Complaint upheld FOI 22: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50693617

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621301

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 15 Oct 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a copy of the minutes of, and any associated papers for, the Domestic Affairs Cabinet committee in January 2003 which considered tuition fees. The Cabinet Office withheld the information in the scope of the request on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(b) of FOIA and that in the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 35: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50741770

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.628491

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 14 Aug 2018

The complainant requested copies of correspondence by named senior officials and Ministers regarding Carillion PLC between June and August 2017. The information held by the public authority within the scope of the request was withheld relying on the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(c) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) FOIA.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld FOI 36(2)(c): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50722574

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.628257

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 9 Jan 2018

The complainant submitted a meta-request to the Cabinet Office following on from an earlier request he had submitted to it about the cloud based collaboration tool Slack. The Cabinet Office refused the meta-request on the basis of section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The complainant subsequently made a further request for the reasonable opinion record and the correspondence leading up to it which the Cabinet Office used to engage section 36 to the information in the scope of the meta-request. The Cabinet Office argued that the information in the scope of the further request was itself exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that information falling in the scope of the further request is exempt on the basis of these exemptions and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50689205

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.617334