Category: Information

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information about the Mineworker’s Pension Scheme, specifically the minutes of meetings in the period 1990-1992 during which the division of scheme surpluses was discussed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Energy and Climate Change (‘DECC’) has correctly applied section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘FOIA’) to this request. Therefore he does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50457752

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.528064

North Yorkshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Dec 2006

ICO The complainant asked North Yorkshire Police (‘NYP’) for information about the cost to the force of policing/policing protests at RAF Menwith Hill (‘the base’). NYP refused to provide the information, citing the exemptions contained in sections 24(1), 26(1), 27(1), 31, 36(2), and 38(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, NYP subsequently withdrew its citation of the exemption in section 24 and instead contended that the exemption in section 23(1) was applicable to most of the information sought. The Commissioner has decided that section 23(1) is engaged and, since it is an absolute exemption, it is not subject to the public interest test, and NYP is entitled to withhold the information in question. While the Commissioner welcomed NYP’s agreement to provide the complainant with some information, he criticised NYP for citing section 23 at such a late stage and found that NYP was in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50074342

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.533624

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested correspondence regarding advice provided to Ministers in relation to the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) subsidy for solar generation. The Department of Energy and Climate Control (DECC) identified information within the scope of the request but withheld it on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that DECC has correctly applied the internal communications exception and the public interest favours withholding the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0448880

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.529901

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information about dependency and primary carers in relation to immigration. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied section 14(1) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50500202

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.528994

East Lindsey District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Feb 2008

ICO The complainant was in dispute with the Council about a proposal to site a wind farm in the locality. He contacted the Commissioner to ask for assistance in obtaining a copy of some legal advice received by the Council, having been told that it was confidential. He also wanted copies of any correspondence surrounding the advice. After the Commissioner’s intervention the Council provided the legal advice and copies of all the surrounding correspondence it said it held. The complainant considered that the Council held further information. The Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had searched thoroughly for all the information which was covered by the request and that it had supplied this to the complainant. He concluded that on the balance of probabilities no other material was held, although the Council had failed to communicate this in its Refusal Notice, thereby breaching regulation 14(1) of the EIR. The Council also failed to provide an adequate Refusal Notice within 20 working days, thereby breaching regulation 14(2) and (3). The Commissioner also considered the Council had breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide the information it did hold with 20 working days. He concluded that the Council had wrongly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) by claiming that the legal advice was excepted from disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FER0096306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.532521

Aberdare Girls School (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Nov 2012

ICO The complainant requested information about how many court cases had been adjourned since the Applied Language Solutions contract for translation services went live. The Ministry of Justice refused to provide the requested information on the basis that it had estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost to comply exceeds the appropriate limit). The Information Commissioner has investigated and has found that the MOJ correctly relied on section 12(1) in refusing to provide the requested information. He does not require the MOJ to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50459076

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.529969

Hackney London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Oct 2013

The complainant requested information relating to the planned building of an academy school in Hackney. London Borough of Hackney (the Council) refused to disclose this information on the basis that the complainant’s requests were manifestly unreasonable and so the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(b) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were not manifestly unreasonable and so the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(b) was not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the complainant’s requests that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0488315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.528759

South Hams District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant requested information from South Hams District Council (the council) about concerns of a possible flood risk to his property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it did not supply the information within 20 working days from the date of the request. As the council has now provided the information to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. However, he feels it appropriate to highlight his concern about the length of time it took the council to provide all of the information to the complainant, that being 21 months, and that the final part of the information only came to light because of a separate investigation from the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0504177

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.529020

Health and Safety Executive (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Jan 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information regarding complaints about the victimisation of safety representatives. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does not hold the requested information for requests 1 and 2. The Commissioner has also found that information relevant to requests 3 and 4 is held. HSE should have either provided this information or applied the exemption under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as the basis for its refusal. However no further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50458861

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.527824

UKBorder Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Nov 2009

ICO In February 2007, the complainant requested a copy of a report by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners relating to the then UK Immigration Service (now UK Borders Agency). The public authority refused to provide this citing section 31(1)(e) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position on internal review. The public authority provided further detail as to the application of section 31(1)(e) and also cited section 23(1) and section 40(2) in relation to certain parts of the report. Having considered these arguments the Commissioner had decided that the public authority correctly applied section 31(1)(e). He also agrees with the public authority’s application of section 23(1). However, he does not agree with the public authority’s application of section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which it has withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner has also identified a number of procedural contraventions in the way the public authority handled this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50170394

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.532363

UK Trade and Investment (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Apr 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information about a proposed coalmine in Bangladesh known as the Phulbari Coal Project, and the London-based, AIM-listed company backing the project, GCM Resources. UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) withheld one document in full under section 27(1)(a) and (d), section 43(2) and section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It made another redaction under section 27(1)(a) and (d) FOIA to another document. Further information was provided in part however this does not fall within the scope of the complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKTI has correctly applied section 27(1)(a) FOIA to withhold the document in full and to make the redaction referred to above. The Commissioner did not therefore consider the application of section 27(1)(d), section 43(2) or section 40(2) FOIA any further. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50476007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.528225

Thames Valley Police (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Aug 2006

ICO The complainant requested figures for the number of speeding tickets issued at camera sites 265 and 266 on Marlow Road in High Wycombe. The public authority refused to provide this information citing section 31 (Law Enforcement Exemption) as the basis for its refusal. In correspondence with the Commissioner, the public authority also cited section 38 (Health and Safety Exemption) as an additional basis for its refusal. The Commissioner found that the public authority did not comply with some of its procedural obligations under the Act. However the Commissioner decided that the information was exempt because disclosure would prejudice law enforcement and would endanger health and safety and that the public interest in maintaining both exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the requested information. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50098965

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.533540

Arun District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Nov 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application. The Commissioner considers that there is one FOIA request and the rest are EIR requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Arun District Council has breached regulations 5, 6 and 11 of the EIR and section 17 of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0441296

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.529970

Pembrokeshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Oct 2012

ICO The complainant requested an exchange of emails between two councillors acting in their councillor role and an officer of Pembrokeshire County Council (‘the Council), acting in his official role on a matter of official business. The Council originally informed the complainant that as the exchange of emails would have taken place between Christmas and New Year when the Council was officially closed, they would have been sent from the personal computers of these individuals so would not therefore be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). However, following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council has subsequently confirmed that it holds no information falling within the scope of the request beyond that which is already in the hands of the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Pembrokeshire County Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50439671

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.529947

Coventry University (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jan 2013

The complainant has made a request to Coventry University (the University) for information relating to the setting up of Coventry University College (CUC). The University provided much of the requested information but withheld some information under section 22, section 43(2), section 41 and section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 22 FOIA in this case to make the redactions to the information requested at part 1 of the request and to withhold in full the information requested at parts 3 and 5 of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 22 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50444347

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 36(2)(b)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.527798

House of Lords (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant requested information about the lightning protection system at the House of Lords (the ‘HOL’). Although the HOL provided some information in response to the request, it stated that it did not hold any lightning risk assessment report. The Information Commissioner finds that the information requested constitutes environmental information and therefore should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). He has concluded on the balance of probabilities that the requested lightning risk assessment report was not held by the HOL. In making available the information it held within 20 working days of receipt of the request, and in stating that no further information was held, the HOL therefore complied with regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0507004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.528996

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Feb 2009

The complainant requested information from the BBC in relation the spending on radio stations and radio budgets. The BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. During the course of the investigation the BBC also sought to rely on exemptions under the Act to withhold the information. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the BBC misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that the information requested falls within the scope of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the BBC’s application of the exemptions and found that some of the information was exempt from disclosure under section 12(1) of the Act and some of the information was exempt under section 43 of the Act. The Commissioner found that some of the information was not exempt under section 43, 40 or 41 of the Act and he now requires that the BBC disclose this information to the complainant. In not communicating this information to the applicant the BBC also breached section 1 of the Act. The Commissioner also found that some information was not held. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0015 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50090393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.531924

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jan 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information regarding a documentary which was aired in 2004. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the 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:

[2013] UKICO FS50465815

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.527782

Regina on the Application of Anna Ford v The Press Complaints Commission: Admn 31 Jul 2001

The complainant had been photographed wearing a bikini, whilst on holiday by a photographer using a long lens. She had been on a quiet part of public beach. She complained to the Press Complaints Commission who rejected her complaint. The rules required press not to use such tactics when the subject was on private property, and the definition of that included a place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. The commission found it to be a public place. She sought to review their decision. The commission that it exercised a public function under the Act. On judicial review, the court was not to substitute its own decision for that of the executive. The human rights law might now require a more intensive review, when considering the proportionality of any interference with the subject’s rights of privacy. Nevertheless, the English courts will continue to defer to the views of bodies like the Commission even after the HRA. In this case also there had been a delay in applying for the review, and the application for leave to review was dismissed.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Sibler

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 683

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Code of Practice of the Press Complaints Commission, Human Rights Act 1998 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Yaser Mahmood) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 9-Aug-2001
The Home Secretary had served notice that the applicant was an illegal immigrant, and liable to deportation. An order had been made for the cross examination of the applicant. He had come to England to study, but soon dropped his immediate plans. He . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Regina v Press Complaints Commission and Stewart-Brady (By Next Friend Kerr) CA 18-Nov-1996
Judicial review of a decision of the Press Complaints Commission was not appropriate. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information, Judicial Review, Human Rights, Administrative

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159895

Pelling v Families Need Fathers Ltd: CA 1 Aug 2001

The claimant, a member of the company, a charitable company limited by guarantee, sought a list of the company’s members. This was refused, and the court used a discretion not to order the list to be produced. The applicant sought to lead a group intending to remove the present board of directors. He appealed on the basis that his motives were irrelevant, and no such discretion existed. The company argued that the release of the names would breach the Data Protection Act. The court held that the words of the section created a discretion. It would not be a breach of the 1984 Act to release the list, but the purpose of the section and the parties could better be met by an appropriate arrangement for him to be allowed to contact the members through the company.

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Mummery, Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1280, [2002] 1 BCLC 645, [2002] 2 All ER 440,

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 356 (6), Data Protection Act 1984 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Armstrong v Sheppard and Short Ltd CA 1959
The plaintiff had a path at the rear of his property. The defendant constructed a sewer under the path, and asked the plaintiff for permission. He gave it informally, not knowing at the time that he owned the land. The sewer was constructed. Though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159872

Shropshire Council (Local Government): ICO 19 Feb 2019

The complainant has requested information about costs incurred by Shropshire Council (‘the Council’) in dealing with a public inquiry. The Council disclosed some information, but said that it did not hold information about the costs of work done by staff in the course of their day to day duties. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold the requested information.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50798047

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.635036

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 23 Sep 2020

The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (the DHSC) to disclose a copy of the final Impact Assessment (IA), produced in July 2019, for the ‘Community Pharmacy Contractual Framework 2019/20 to 2023/24’ (CPCF). The DHSC refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) does not apply. However, section 43(2) of the FOIA does apply to the sections of the IA identified by the DHSC. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to disclose the sections of the IA to which section 43(2) of the FOIA has not been applied to the complainant.
FOI 35(1)(a): Complaint upheld FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-45035-Z3X1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.656038

Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Nov 2020

The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the claims to be struck out.
Held: The claim of harassment could not be struck out merely because the surveillance was covert: ‘on the one hand, a person cannot be guilty of stalking unless they are also guilty of harassment; and, on the other hand, in order to be guilty of stalking their course of conduct must in addition involve ‘acts or omissions [which] are ones associated with stalking’. Further, the acts which are associated with stalking include (among other things): (1) following a person, (2) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, and (3) watching or spying on a person.’

Judges:

Richard Spearman QC

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3241 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act2A 3 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – John v Rees and Others; Martin and Another v Davis and Others ChD 1969
The Court was asked as to the validity of proceedings at a meeting of the members of the local Labour Party which had broken up in disorder. The proceedings were instituted by the leader of one faction on behalf of himself and all other members of . .
Cited – Tilling v Whiteman HL 8-Mar-1979
The plaintiff owner of a property had commenced proceedings to recover the property from the defendant tenants. The plaintiff then applied to have a particular provision of the 1968 Act interpreted as a preliminary issue of law under O 33 r 2.
Cited – Re S-W (Children) CA 30-Jan-2015
Appeal from care orders: ‘The judge’s approach could not have been more robust. He sought to justify such an approach on the basis that recent family justice reforms and case law. There is a need for the Court of Appeal to consider whether such a . .
Cited – Moroney v Anglo-European College of Chiropractice CA 1-Nov-2009
The claimant appealed saying that on an application under Rule 3.4, the judge had without forewarning him struck out his case under part 24.
Held: There is an overlap between the summary judgment and strike out jurisdictions to the extent that . .
Cited – Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd ChD 2-Mar-2009
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request
The court considered an application for summary judgment.
Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as . .
Cited – SPI North Ltd v Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd and Another ChD 7-Dec-2020
The test to be applied on an opposed application to amend is the same as the test to be applied to an application for summary judgment (i.e. whether the proposed new claim has a real prospect of success) . .
Cited – Benyatov v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd QBD 22-Jan-2020
‘it is not appropriate to strike out a claim in an area of developing jurisprudence, since, in such areas, decisions as to novel points of law should be based on actual findings of fact’ . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Cited – Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The . .
Cited – Roberts v Bank of Scotland Plc CA 11-Jun-2013
The bank appealed against a finding that it had harassed the claimant customer by its repeated telephone calls.
Held: The appeal failed as to liability and quantum.
Harassment can occur even if the conduct in question is, at first sight, . .
Cited – Howlett v Holding QBD 25-Jan-2006
The claimant sought an injunction against the defendant who had taken to flying airplanes above her house trailing banners making allegations against her, and also to making surveillance of her.
Held: The defence under the 1997 Act excusing . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Cited – Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 18-Jul-2001
The publication of articles in a newspaper describing how a ‘black clerk’ had complained about the allegedly racist comments of two policemen was said to have caused the claimant to receive racist hate mail.
Held: The court considered the type . .
Cited – Hayes v Willoughby SC 20-Mar-2013
The claimant and appellant had been employer and employee who had fallen out, with a settlement in 2005. The appellant then began an unpleasant and obsessive personal vendetta against Mr Hayes, complaining to public bodies with allegations of tax . .
Cited – Levi and Another v Bates and Others CA 12-Mar-2015
The second claimant was wife to a businessman involved in football. It was said that the defendant, manager of Leeds United, together with the club and a radio station had harassed the first claimant. She was affected but not the intended victim. . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Dowson and Others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police QBD 20-Oct-2010
Six officers sought damages under the 1997 Act alleging harassment by a senior officer of the defendant.
Held: Simon J set out what a claimant must prove in an harassment claim:
‘(1) There must be conduct which occurs on at least two . .
Cited – Regina v Curtis CACD 9-Feb-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1977 Act. He and the complainant had been in a volatile relationship. Both were police constables. He said that though there had been incidents, they had not amounted to a course of conduct . .
Cited – Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
Harassment to Criminal Level needed to Convict
The claimant had been a customer of the defendant, but had moved to another supplier. She was then subjected to a constant stream of threatening letters which she could not stop despite re-assurances and complaints. The defendant now appealed . .
Cited – Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd CA 2-Dec-2009
The claimant alleged that her manager at work had harassed her. The court, applying Conn, had found that none of the acts complained of were sufficiently serious to amount to criminal conduct, and had rejected the claim.
Held: The claimant’s . .
Cited – Howlett v Holding QBD 25-Jan-2006
The claimant sought an injunction against the defendant who had taken to flying airplanes above her house trailing banners making allegations against her, and also to making surveillance of her.
Held: The defence under the 1997 Act excusing . .
Cited – Kellett v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2001
The appellant appealed by case stated against the dismissal of his appeal against his conviction by the magistrates’ court of harassment contrary to section 2 of the PHA. The appellant and the victim were neighbours, and there was a history of civil . .
Cited – Widdows, Regina v CACD 21-Jun-2011
Reasons for allowing of appeal from conviction of offence of putting someone in fear.
Held: ‘The emphasis in the summing up was not on what amounts to harassment but what amounts to assault. Further direction was required as to what can be a . .
Cited – Regina v Haque CACD 26-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed against conviction under section 4(1) of the 1997 Act. It was not disputed that the prosecution had to prove (1) that there had been a course of conduct on the part of the appellant, (2) that the course of conduct had caused . .
Cited – Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2014
Moses LJ said: ‘The Crown Court was undoubtedly correct to follow the guidance of the Court of Appeal in R v Haque. The three requirements identified include as a second requirement the conduct must be calculated to produce the consequences . .
Cited – International Businesss Machines Corporation and Another v Web-Sphere Ltd and others ChD 17-Mar-2004
The claimant had registered trade marks under the name websphere, and accused the defendant of infringement using the name with a hyphen.
Held: The claim suceeded. As to the requirement for calculation of damages, ‘the word ‘calculated’ should . .
Cited – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 31-Jul-2013
Judgment on the second stage of the trial of a claim for libel and malicious falsehood.
Held: Tugendhat J adopted the meaning ‘more likely than not to cause pecuniary damage’ for ‘calculated to’. . .
Cited – Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani Uk Ltd and Another ChD 26-Mar-2013
Extended passing-off case about yoghurt. The main issue was whether, by the beginning of September 2012, the phrase ‘Greek yoghurt’ had, when used in the UK marketplace, come to have attached to it a sufficient reputation and goodwill as denoting a . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
Cited – LJY v Person(s) Unkown QBD 11-Dec-2017
Calim for alleged blackmail by defendants . .
Cited – BVC v EWF QBD 26-Sep-2019
Application by the Claimant for summary judgment in a claim for misuse of private information and harassment. The privacy claim arises from internet publication, on a website created by the Defendant, of his account of his relationship with the . .
Cited – Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd and Another v Unknown Persons CA 5-Mar-2020
‘This appeal concerns the way in which, and the extent to which, civil proceedings for injunctive relief against ‘persons unknown’ can be used to restrict public protests.’ . .
Cited – Khan (Formerly JMO) v Khan (Formerly KTA) QBD 15-Feb-2018
Claim for harassment within family dispute. . .
Cited – Hourani v Thomson and Others QBD 10-Mar-2017
Warby J identified the three issues on which the claimant bore the burden of proof in relation to each defendant on a claim of harassment as: (1) Did the defendant engage in a course of conduct? (2) Did any such course of conduct amount to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.656439

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 16 Oct 2020

The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to disclose information relating to concerns he raised five years ago about a named individual. The DHSC refused to comply with the request citing section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(2) of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-45010-R6T1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.656122

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 21 Sep 2020

The complainant requested a copy of a report into Operation Cygnus. The Department of Health and Social Care had failed to respond at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the evidence provided, the complainant’s original request was not valid, however he did make a valid request at a later date. In the circumstances, the Commissioner considers that the DHSC has failed to complete its considerations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable timeframe and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also considers that, based on the available evidence, the DHSC breached its section 16 duty because it failed to clarify the request in writing. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: either provide a copy of the information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld FOI 8: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-47344-F9K8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.656040

BVC v EWF: QBD 26 Sep 2019

Application by the Claimant for summary judgment in a claim for misuse of private information and harassment. The privacy claim arises from internet publication, on a website created by the Defendant, of his account of his relationship with the Claimant. The harassment claim arises from a series of email communications from the Defendant to the Claimant over a period of some two years, and from publication of the website itself.

Judges:

Parkes QC HHJ

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2506 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – BVC v EWF QBD 12-Oct-2018
. .
Cited – Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another QBD 27-Nov-2020
The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Torts – Other

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.642134

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 18 Jun 2020

The complainant has requested information about an undercover police officer from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS met with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA in respect of one part of the request. In respect of the remainder, she finds that section 40(5) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50899215

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.653668

Lord Chancellors Advisory Committee for Cheshire On Justices of The Peace (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jul 2006

ICO The complaint requested copies of material created as a result of a complaint he had submitted to the Authority in relation to the manner in which a particular Magistrates Court dealt with its business. The authority provided the complainant with a copy of the information but with redactions to two sentences of one document, explaining that the information was exempt under section 31. Having investigated, the Commissioner is satisfied that the exemption was properly applied.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50078010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.533515

Skipton Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Jul 2005

ICO Complainant requested information relating to a dispute with the public authority regarding an allotment site and in particular, information relating to Council meetings at which the matter was discussed. The complainant argued he had received no response and that he was entitled to the information. The Council provided the Commissioner with a copy of its Refusal Notice and explained that the information withheld would have identified other individuals and that this would have amounted to a disclosure of personal data contrary to the Data Protection Act. Therefore, in this case the Decision Notice stated that there were no breaches of the FOI Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50064448

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.533241

Bristol City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Sep 2011

IPO The Commissioner’s decision is that Bristol City Council (‘the council’) has breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the Act’) by failing to disclose information within the statutory time for compliance. However he does not require the council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0397051

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.530804

Derbyshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jan 2013

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of the landowner’s application for the diversion of two specific footpaths. Derbyshire County Council (the council) applied regulation 13 to the information in its entirety as it considered that the information was the personal data of the applicants and it would be unfair to disclose it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was incorrect to rely on regulation 13 to withhold the requested information with the exception of the email address, telephone number and signature of the applicant which was correctly withheld. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the withheld information to the complainant, with the exception of the email address, telephone number and signature.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0445582

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.527810

ESSA Academy (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Aug 2012

ICO The complainant made a request to ESSA Academy for minutes of Child Action Meetings held in 2009, together with certain policies. ESSA Academy failed to respond to her request within the statutory timescale of 20 working days. Several months after the request had been made, ESSA Academy advised that it did not hold some of the requested information and provided a copy of its Code of Conduct policy but provided the information at a meeting, rather than in accordance with FOIA. ESSA Academy therefore failed to recognise the request as being valid for the purposes of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, ESSA Academy does not hold any further information other than what has been provided. In failing to provide a response within twenty working days, ESSA Academy breached section 10(1). It also breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA by failing to confirm that it held any of the requested information and in failing to provide it to the complainant within the statutory timescales. As these breaches do not necessitate remedial action, the Information Commissioner does not require ESSA Academy to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50423298

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.529729

Hull City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jul 2005

ICO The complainant alleged that the Council did not provide advice and assistance and did not respond within the statutory time limit. The Council issued a Fees Notice within the statutory time limit but the complainant wanted to know exactly what information would be communicated before paying this fee. The Commissioner’s decision was that the Council did provide advice and assistance when dealing with the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50062326

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.533235

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 13 Oct 2020

The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) about early evidence kits in testing for drugs used in relation to the Drug Facilitated Sexual Assault Report 2007 published by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Secretariat. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC 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 DHSC to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-50404-P8S4

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.656123

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jul 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to solar panel installations in a particular postal district. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) explained that there were 113 installations in the postal district but refused to provide a further breakdown of the figures by full postcode under regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DECC has correctly applied regulation 13 EIR in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0151 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0443617

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.529616

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decision Notice) FER0489836: ICO 3 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant has requested a letter from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey and to the Prime Minister’s private secretary about John Hayes. He also asked for any response. The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) refused the request under section 35(1) (a) and (b) on the grounds that the information related to government policy and was also a ministerial communication. The Commissioner decided that the request should be considered under the EIR at which point the DECC applied regulation 12(4)(e) internal communications to withhold the letter from Ed Davey. However it did not address the issue of whether there was any reply to that letter. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4) (e) is engaged in respect of the letter from Ed Davey but finds that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the letter. The DECC should also deal with the second element of the request. If there was no response, the DECC should confirm this by applying regulation 12(4) (a).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0489836

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.528977

East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Jun 2006

A request was made for a copy of the report of an independent inquiry panel set up to address concerns about the clinical governance of East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust. The Trust provided a redacted copy, arguing that the withheld information was exempt under section 40 (Personal Data) and that part was subject to a section 10 notice under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner has found that there was some delay by the Trust in responding to the request in accordance with the Act, and so he has decided that the Trust failed to comply with its obligations under section 10, section 17 and section 1 in respect of some information. However, he has also decided that the Trust was justified in relying on section 40 in respect of the redacted material, other than the small amount of redacted material referred to on page 4 of the report which he considers was not personal data.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50080302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.533452

Civil Service Commission (Decision Notice) FS50451470: ICO 7 Nov 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Civil Service Commissioner (CSC) about sackings of civil servants who have raised complaints to CSC, as well as information about CSC’s failings in handling complaints. CSC refused the request on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that CSC was correct to find the request vexatious. The Commissioner does not require any action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0246 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50451470

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.529989

Essex Police (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from Essex Police about the location of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, including CCTV cameras with ANPR functionality, in and around Brentwood. Essex Police refused to disclose the location of the cameras, citing national security and law enforcement reasons (sections 24(1) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (c)). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police was entitled to rely on section 31 as its reason for withholding the requested information. The Information Commissioner does not require Essex Police to take any steps as a result of his decision. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50439214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.529730

Charity Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Dec 2007

ICO The complainant wrote to the Charity Commission (‘the public authority’) seeking a copy of a draft report produced by the Independent Complaints Reviewer (the ICR) into complaints concerning the public authority. Those complaints related to its handling of an application made by the complainant for a declaration of charitable status. The public authority refused the request as it considered that the information contained in the draft report was exempt under section 41 of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the public authority has correctly applied the section 41 exemption in this case. However, the Commissioner finds that the public authority delayed in responding to the request and therefore has breached sections 10 and 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50148098

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.533138

Thames Valley Police (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Sep 2012

ICO The complainant requested information held by Thames Valley Police (the police) about a named individual. The police refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5) was applied correctly and so the police are not required to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50453212

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.529868

Marston Properties (Undertakings): ICO 6 Aug 2012

ICO An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Marston Properties. This follows the loss of 37 staff members’ details when the filing cabinet the information was stored in was sent to a recycling centre and crushed.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-30

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.529748

Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Nov 2012

ICO The complainant asked how and why Dyfed-Powys Police (DPP) pursued a magistrate’s court case on an alleged spurious allegation of a dog attack by a senile old man living in a local nursing home. DPP refused the request on the basis of section 8(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that DPP reasonably required further details in order to identify the requested information, and sought this clarification from the requestor. As it did not receive this clarification, it was not obliged to comply with the request, as confirmed by virtue of section 1(3) of the Act. The Commissioner orders no steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50456134

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 8(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.529985

Common Council of The City of London (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Dec 2011

The complainant requested information relating to the Hampstead Heath Constabulary and the Epping Forest Keepers. The Common Council of the City of London responded that the information requested was not covered by the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In order to assist however, it provided some information that it considered was relevant. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council identified further information which it said may be relevant however it maintained that the request was not covered by the FOIA in any case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly concluded that the information requested could not be disclosed under the FOIA because the information would not be held in its capacity as a local authority, police authority or port health authority. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50402837

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.531143

Royal Mail (Decision Notice): ICO 16 May 2005

ICO The complainant requested information relating to requests for access to his personal files. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50058993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.533213

Common Council of The City of London (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Oct 2011

ICO The complainant requested the Common Council of the City of London (CoL) to release information relating to its decision to grant mandatory rate relief to the Church of Scientology Religious Education College (COSREC) which is held by its Audit Department. The Council responded refusing to comply with the request under section 12(4)(b) of the Act. As the complainant remained dissatisfied, he approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner has given the matter careful consideration and he is satisfied that section 12(1) by virtue of section 12(4)(b) of the Act applies to the request. He therefore requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50353495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.530947

Bolton Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Dec 2009

On 18 May 2009 the complainant submitted a Freedom of Information request to Bolton Council (the ‘council’) for a copy of the legal advice documents it received in 2007 regarding its current parking regulations. Certain sections of this advice had been discussed at a public meeting. The council concluded that legal privilege had been waived in relation to these sections, and therefore disclosed them to the complainant. However, the council claimed that the rest of the legal advice was exempt from disclosure under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act. At internal review, the council upheld its refusal to supply the withheld information on the basis of section 42(1). The Commissioner considers that the council was correct to cite section 42(1) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50263148

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.532376

Hampshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jan 2011

The complainant requested information relating to people convicted under the refusal to decrypt legislation. Hampshire Constabulary neither confirmed nor denied that it holds information, citing the exemptions in sections 40(5) (personal information), 23(5) (information supplied by, or concerning security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 38(2) (health and safety). The Commissioner has investigated and found the public authority correctly relied on section 40(5). He requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0047 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50300474

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.530150

Hampshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested technical information relating to a speed camera. Hampshire Constabulary denied holding the requested information and upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary is correct when it denies holding the requested information. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50502881

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.528882

Hampshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jul 2010

The complainant requested the dates of pre-hunt meetings and the names of police officers who had attended these. The public authority disclosed the dates of the meetings, but refused to disclose officer’s names and cited the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime), 31(1)(b) (prejudice to the apprehension or prosecution of offenders), 31(1)(c) (prejudice to the administration of justice), 38(1)(a) (endangerment to health) and 38(1)(b) (endangerment to safety). Section 40(2) (personal information) was also cited following the intervention of the Commissioner. The conclusion of the Commissioner is that information recording the officers’ names is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) and, therefore, the public authority is not required to disclose this information. However, the Commissioner has also found that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 17(1) and 17(3)(b) in its handling of the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0132 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50285356

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.531551