Category: Information

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 23 Jan 2019

The complainant requested information relating to the use of restraints during an incident. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50807761

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.634880

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 17 Jan 2019

The complainant requested information from the Home Office about Border Force staffing levels in Northern Ireland during a specified two year period. The Home Office confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (e) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (e). No steps are required as a result of this decision
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50775354

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.634878

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 30 Jan 2019

The complainant requested information relating to voluntary returns surgeries. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing section 31(1)(e) (law enforcement – the operation of the immigration controls) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption provided by section 31(1)(e) was not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld surgery locations and host organisation names from the list of surgery names and addresses provided to the Commissioner.
FOI 31: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50796737

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.634879

Leeds City Council (Local Government): ICO 21 May 2018

The complainant has made two information requests in which he seeks various information about the handling of a planning complaint and associated information requests that he has made. Leeds City Council disclosed held information in response, but under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The complainant subsequently contested that further information was held that should be provided under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of the probabilities, the Council does not hold further information that would fall under the terms of the EIR. However, the Council breached regulation 5(1) by providing a response to the requests outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0695235

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.617812

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 21 Aug 2018

The complainant requested information relating to an extradition request he believed had possibly been made. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to or supplied by security bodies), 27(4) (international relations) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 23(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of section 23(1) of the FOIA. She requires no steps.
FOI 23: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50730066

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.628291

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 4 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information about the amounts paid to the author of a report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS initially refused to provide this information, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA, however, it was later provided to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The MPS did confirm that the information was held, but outside of the 20 working day time limit, thereby breaching section 10(1) of the FOIA. In failing to disclose the requested information within the time limit the Commissioner finds a further breach of section 10. No steps are required.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50736525

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.621342

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 16 Aug 2018

The complainant requested information relating to asylum and immigration data in Northern Ireland. The Home Office confirmed it held relevant information but refused to provide it citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has provided a reasonable estimate of the costs associated with complying with the request and has therefore correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Home Office breached section 16(1) of the FOIA in that it did not provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant as to how her request could have been refined to bring it within the cost limit. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to take reasonable steps to advise and assist the complainant with a view to refining the request to bring it within the cost limit.
FOI 16: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50733801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.628292

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 14 Sep 2018

The complainant requested information relating to an aircraft incident that occurred on 17 August 1988, and which caused the death of the then president of Pakistan, and then ambassador to Pakistan for the United States of America. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether information was held and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5), 27(4), and 31(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Home Office was entitled to rely upon the exemption provided by section 23(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request, which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of section 23(1).
FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50718974

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.628410

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 22 Aug 2018

The complainant has requested information regarding deportations. The Home Office disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 31(1)(c) and (e) (law enforcement), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has not applied sections 31(1)(c) and (e), 38 (1)(a) and (b) or 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner also considers that the Home Office has breached sections 10(1) (time for compliance) and 17(1) and (3) (refusal of a request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information in relation to question 3 of the request for information. The Home Office 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 31: Complaint upheld FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint upheld FOI 38: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50700037

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.628290

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 13 Sep 2018

The complainant requested information relating to charter flight mass deportations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50761881

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.628411

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 18 Oct 2018

The complainant requested information relating to rough sleeping European Economic Area (EEA) nationals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50787698

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.628515

Northern Rock Plc v The Financial Times Ltd and Another: QBD 16 Nov 2007

The court was asked whether information remained confidential after its publication on a web-site.
Held: The court contrasted publication briefly on a web site which would not be generally accessible or used by the general public, and more general publication.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2677 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Guardian News Media Ltd QBD 19-Mar-2009
The bank sought continuation of an injunction preventing publication by the defendant of papers leaked to relating to the claimant’s tax management. The claimant claimed in confidentiality. The papers did not reveal any unlawful activity. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Media

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.262116

Hughes v Carratu International Plc: QBD 19 Jul 2006

The claimant wished to bring an action against the defendant enquiry agent, saying that it had obtained unlawful access to details of his bank accounts, and now sought disclosure of documents. The defendant denied wrongdoing, and said it had returned all papers to solicitors.
Held: The proposed respondents had not been fully candid, and a sufficient case was established to justify disclosure. ‘ there is reason to believe that there has been a serious breach of the criminal law. The enquiry agents who are suspected of that breach and who have been charged with it, appear to have been under the impression that the Respondent (and so presumably the Respondent’s client, the law firm), would not regard as unwelcome the receipt of the information which was obtained by those criminal means. This is not, apparently an isolated case. I infer that the law firm are aware of the present proceedings because I have been told that they asked for the file in order to protect their client’s claim to privilege, but they have not indicated any stance that they might be adopting towards the making of the order insofar as it might involve disclosure of their own identity. There has been no explanation as to how the enquiry agents can have been under so serious a misunderstanding as to the wishes of the Respondent that all information be obtained lawfully, given the Respondent’s repeated declarations of the importance they attach to compliance with the law. For these reasons I shall make the whole of the order sought by the Applicant. ‘

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1791 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998, Civil Procedure Rules 31.16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd ChD 29-Apr-2005
Mitsui sought disclosure of documents from a third party under the rules in Norwich Pharmacal.
Held: Such relief was available ‘where the claimant requires the disclosure of crucial information in order to be able to bring its claim or where . .
Cited – Black v Sumitomo Corporation CA 3-Dec-2001
The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted.
Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the . .
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .

Cited by:

Cited – L v L and Hughes Fowler Carruthers QBD 1-Feb-2007
The parties were engaged in ancillary relief proceedings. The Husband complained that the wife had sought to use unlawfully obtained information, and in these proceedings sought delivery up of the material from the wife and her solicitors. He said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244008

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Mar 2011

The complainants are a firm of solicitors representing clients who are in dispute with the council over their house. The house is close to the intended route of a new section of road and the clients are concerned that this will adversely affect their enjoyment of, and the value of their property. The council provided some of the client’s personal data to the complainants in response to their request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. However it withheld other information on the basis that section 40(2) of the Act applies, and other information on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, (internal communications) applies. Section 40(2) refers to the personal data of third parties. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0099 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0323559

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.530319

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 11 Apr 2019

The complainant requested information about a UK visa that he believed had been granted to Anwar Al-Awlaki and also about what he described as Mr Al-Awlaki’s subsequent ‘ban’ from the UK. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 41(2) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to rely on section 41(2) to issue a NCND response to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and either disclose any information identified or issue a refusal notice which is compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 41: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50798935

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.638098

Guildford Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 29 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested any information from Guildford Borough Council (‘the Council’), exchanged between a group of named people, containing the words ‘livery’ and ‘meeting’ and dated between 1 March 2015 to 31 December 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore, the Council was entitled to rely on Section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. However, as the Council did not respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days, section 10 of the FOIA has been breached. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50752442

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.638021

Franchet And Byk v Commission: ECFI 6 Jul 2006

ECJ Law Governing The Institutions – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Investigations of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – Eurostat – Refusal of access – Inspections and investigations – Court proceedings – Rights of the defence.

Citations:

T-391/03, [2006] EUECJ T-391/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243018

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2014

The complainant has made requests for information relating to the council’s actions as regards the care provided to his wife. The council refused to respond to the request on the basis that section 17(6) applied that previous similar requests had been received from the complainant which the council decided were vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 17(6) to the requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50519359

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.527470

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Nov 2007

The complainant requested a copy of a waste management contract East Sussex County Council (the ‘ESCC’) has agreed with an independent waste management contractor. The council withheld some sections of the contract on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality of information) applied. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the ESCC has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the Regulations in that some sections of the redacted information should have been supplied to the complainant. The exception to the duty to disclose the requested information was however applicable to other sections of the contract.
EIR 12.5.e: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FER0099394

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.533115

Leeds City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Mar 2010

The complainant complained about the Council’s response to a number of requests he made regarding a planning application. He complained that he did not consider that Leeds City Council had provided all the information it held and about the fact it had applied the exemption under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information about a particular planning officer. The Information Commissioner considered some of these requests as part of his investigation. The Commissioner noted that two of the requests were not responded to by the Council and he requires the Council to respond to these. Regarding the remaining requests, the Commissioner considers that the Council should have dealt with the requests under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Regarding the information originally withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA, the Commissioner found that this information was not actually held. Regarding the remaining requests, the Commissioner was satisfied that no information was held in relation to one of the requests and in relation to the other, he was satisfied that the information that was held had already been provided. However, he found that the Council breached regulation 5(2), 11(4), 14(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50213882

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.531363

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Feb 2014

The complainant has made requests for information relating to the council’s actions as regards the care provided to his wife. The council refused to respond to the request on the basis that section 17(6) applied – that previous similar requests had been received from the complainant which the council decided were vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 17(6) to the requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50514055

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.527469

Leeds City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Mar 2010

The complainant requested information relating to funding provided by the council and other authorities to a Credit Union. The council confirmed that it held information but withheld it from disclosure on the basis that sections 41 (information held in confidence) and 43 (commercial sensitivity) applied. On review it confirmed that decision. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exemptions in section 41 and 43 to the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50252404

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.531364

L, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Admn 19 Mar 2006

The court considered the duties on the respondent in providing an enhanced criminal record certificate. In one case, the claimant had brought up her son who was made subject to child protection procedures for neglect. Her job involved supervising children at lunch time at a school. In the second case, a school head teacher had been prosecuted but found not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter after an autistic child wandered from the playground and was killed by a lorry. The Fire department had forbidden the use of locked gates. In assessing this for disclosure the police misread the judge’s statemnent as to her alleged negligence.
Held: Evidence of the claimant’s alleged negligence was something which the police could properly disclose. For enhanced disclosure, consideration and disclosure was not restricted to purely criminal records.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 482 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Act 1997 115, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 4(2), Children and Young Persons Act 1933 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
Cited – Regina v Local Authority and Police Authority in the Midlands ex parte LM 2000
The applicant owned a bus company whose contract with the local education authority for the provision of school bus services was terminated after the disclosure by the police and the social services department of a past investigation into an . .
Cited – Regina (X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant had been accused of offences, but the prosecution had been discontinued when the child victims had failed to identify him. The police had nevertheless notified potential employers and he had been unable to obtain work as a social . .
Cited – Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania ECHR 27-Jul-2004
Former KGB officers had been banned from employment in a range of public and private sector jobs, including as lawyers, notaries, bank employees and in the teaching profession. They complained of infringement of Article 8 taken alone and also in . .
Cited – Regina v Sheppard HL 1981
The section made it an offence for anyone having care of a child to wilfully neglect the child ‘in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.
Held: The section speaks of an act or omission that is ‘likely’ to . .
Cited – Regina v Norfolk County Council, ex parte M QBD 1989
The plaintiff worked as a plumber. His work took him to a private children’s home. An allegation of sexual abuse was made against him by a 13 year old child. She had made other claims against other men which had proved to be false. He was released . .
Cited – Regina v Harrow London Borough Council ex parte D 1990
The court discussed the legal status of the Child Protection Register. Butler-Sloss LJ: ‘The case conference has a duty to make an assessment as to abuse and the abuser, if sufficient information is available. Of its nature, the mechanism of the . .
Cited – Regina v Shulman, Regina v Prentice, Regina v Adomako; Regina v Holloway HL 1-Jul-1994
An anaesthetist failed to observe an operation properly, and did not notice that a tube had become disconnected from a ventilator. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest and died, and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, being guilty of gross . .
Cited – Regina v Hampshire County Council ex parte H Admn 17-Nov-1997
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – L, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 1-Mar-2007
The court considered the proper content of an enhanced criminal record certificate. The claimant said that it should contain only matter relating to actual or potential criminal activity.
Held: As to the meaning of section 115: ‘if Parliament . .
At First Instance – L, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis SC 29-Oct-2009
Rebalancing of Enhanced Disclosure Requirements
The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242287

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Central Government): ICO 26 Mar 2019

The complainant made a request to Defra for all of the briefing notes and information given to Therese Coffey which include references to fly-tipping. Defra provided some information in response to the request but refused to disclose some information under regulation 12(4)(e) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) EIR to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0796604

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638009

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 29 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested the results of an investigation by the Standards and Testing Agency (STA) into allegations of maladministration at a Primary School. The complainant also asked for any communications, documents or notes relating to the results and investigation. The STA identified relevant information and sought to withhold this under section 36(2), 41 and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the STA has correctly withheld the majority of the information under section 36(2)(b) and (c) of the FOIA but in the case of one letter finds the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner considered if section 41 could be applied to withhold this letter and concluded the exemption was not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information from ‘letter to close the investigation’ with appropriate redactions made for any personal data.
FOI 36: Complaint partly upheld FOI 41: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50785625

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638008

Essex Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 25 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested details of correspondence between four named parties and itself from Essex Police (‘EP’). EP would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether or not it holds any information, citing the exemptions at sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that EP was entitled to rely on section 40(5) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50818075

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638018

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Local Government): ICO 28 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information from East Riding of Yorkshire Council in relation to a policy change to ‘The Licensing Policy Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Services 2016-2019’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The Council must take this step 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: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50824375

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638013

The Governing Body of Christ’s College Finchley (Education): ICO 19 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested all information relating to all of the teaching staff at Christ’s College Finchley (the School) between the years 1984 and 1990. The School withheld this information on the basis of section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA as it considered the information to be personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly withheld this information under section 40(2). However, she has recorded a breach of section 16 of the FOIA, as the School failed to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to understand what information the complainant was seeking. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 16: Complaint upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50727964

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638020

Eden District Council (Local Government): ICO 29 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested a copy of an officer report which recommends the non-enforcement of a planning condition relating to the stopping up of a footpath. The council applied Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply the exception to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the requested information to the complainant.
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0771483

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638014

Shropshire Council (Local Government): ICO 27 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information about land it had purchased from Shropshire Council (the ‘Council’). The Council advised him that it did not hold most of the requested information but did provide him with a copy of a Compulsory Purchase Order, with some names and addresses redacted under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA. In failing to consider the request under the EIR, it breached the requirement of regulation 14 of the EIR. The Council also breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in failing to respond within 20 working days and regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to reconsider the complainant’s representations within 40 working days. The Commissioner finds that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. No steps are required.
EIR 11: Complaint upheld EIR 13: Complaint not upheld EIR 14: Complaint upheld EIR 5: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50802726

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638050

A v B C and D: QBD 13 Jul 2005

The claimant sought an order restraining the defendant from publishing private matters saying that they should be considered to be confidential information.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2005] EMLR 851, [2005] EWHC 1651 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.229279

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 26 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information, in multiple requests, from the DWP, in February 2018.The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP correctly relied on section 12 (aggregate costs) not to provide the majority of the requested information but not all that was requested.
FOI 12: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50735929

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638012