Category: Information

Department of Justice Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Aug 2013

The complainant requested information relating to the approval of a disposal schedule. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) claimed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NICTS does not hold the requested information, therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50486072

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.528560

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Jul 2012

The complainant requested information relating to remittances made by a particular firm of bailiffs. The council’s position was that it did not hold the information requested, although it did provide a response to one of the requests by obtaining information from the firm involved. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0157 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50436154

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.529599

East Sussex and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 12 Jun 2020

The complainant has requested information on the awarding of a contract, including the options report, valuation report and legal advice. East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) provided some information but refused to provide the remaining information on the basis of the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied the cited exceptions to the remaining information and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner requires no steps but does expect the Trust to disclose the additional information it is no longer seeking to withhold as set out in its submissions to the Commissioner. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0200 under appeal.
EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50840962

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.653637

Vandervall Products Ltd v M’Leod: CA 1957

Lord Evershed MR said that it is very rare to find an ex-employee restrained from exercising his trade in a competing business anywhere in the world.

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1957] RPC 185

Cited by:

Cited – Bluebell Apparel Ltd v Dickinson SCS 14-Oct-1977
The former employee challenged a restriction on his post employment career.
Held: The restriction was world-wide and as such tooo wide, and unenforceable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.546852

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Aug 2013

The complainant requested copies of two particular ‘Notice of Immigration’ decisions for two applicants who had applied via the Home Office’s ‘Tier 4 (General) Student’ system for immigration. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 40(2) has been relied on correctly but by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of the request Home Office breached section 17(1) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498491

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.528576

University of East London (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jun 2012

The complainant has requested information from the University of East London regarding the expenses claimed by senior staff of the University for the past five years. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 12(1) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50425949

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.529587

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Redbridge (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the names of two of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable; however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
FOI 41: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50155411

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.532551

Leicester City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information about whether a named club (the club) had registered a specified event with Leicester City Council (the council) and whether a premises licence was held in respect of the club. The information request was the latest in a longstanding series of correspondence between the complaint and the council on connected matters. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Leicester City Council (the council) incorrectly relied on section 14(1) in this particular case. The Information Commissioner requires the council to respond to the complainant’s request for information as required by section 1(1) FOIA. The council must either comply with section 1(1) FOIA or issue a valid refusal notice complying with section 17(1) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0189 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50422872

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.529745

Peach v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 1986

Statements made to the police about the death of Mr Blair Peach should be disclosed to his mother in her action against the police because, although they were made partly for the purpose of a complaint against the police and so would to that extent, in principle, attract public interest immunity from disclosure, they were made predominantly for the purpose of the investigation by the police of a violent death, to which no such immunity attached.
Fox LJ said: ‘As I understand the position it is the duty of the chief officer of police to convey to the coroner, for the purposes of a public inquest, all material in its possession touching the cause and circumstances of the death . . As a matter of sensible public administration it seems essential that the Coroner should have the material obtained by the police so that he, the Coroner, can decide what witnesses to call and to investigate the matter generally.’
Purchas LJ said: ‘In my judgment, in the class of documents with which we are now faced there is an overwhelming bias in favour of the public interest being served by the disclosure of those documents and that, therefore, there is no justification for creating a new class of privileged documents which would be the effect of extending the class in respect of which Neilson v. Laugharne [1981] Q.B. 736 remains an authority to the class of documents with which the court is concerned in this appeal.’

Judges:

Fox LJ

Citations:

[1986] QB 1064, [1986] 2 WLR 1080, [1986] 2 All ER 129

Citing:

Cited – Neilson v Laugharne CA 1981
A claim was made against the Chief Constable of Lancashire for trespass, wrongful imprisonment, false arrest and assault. The Chief Constable’s response to the letter before action was to write to the plaintiff’s solicitors stating he had decided to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Coroners

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.451298

University of Salford (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Dec 2008

ICO The applicant made a number of requests for information relating to a report entitled, ‘Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise.’ The University refused to disclose the information requested, and cited regulations 12(5)(e) and (f) in relation to three of the requests. The complainant requested an internal review of this decision. After carrying out an internal review the University upheld its previous decision. During the investigation the University informed the Commissioner that it also sought to rely upon regulations 13(1) and 13(2)(a)(i) to withhold some of the information. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the University could not rely upon regulations 12(5)(e) and (f) as the withheld information was information on emissions. However, the Commissioner partially upheld the University’s use of regulations 13(1) and 13(2)(a)(i). Therefore he believes that the withheld information should be disclosed in a redacted format. The Commissioner also believes that the University did not meet the requirements of regulations 5(1), 5(2) and 14(1).
EIR 5: Upheld EIR 5: Upheld EIR 13: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FER0184376

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.532798

Robb v Green: 1895

An employee intending to enter business for himself may prepare for that step, provided he does not breach terms of his contract of employment or breach the confidence reposed in him by his employers. The duty may be breached by an employee preparing a list of his employer’s customers. The granted relief including an order for delivery up to the plaintiff of all copies or extracts from the plaintiff’s papers in the defendant’s possession or under his control. However, each case must be taken on its own facts and there will be cases where an employee may legitimately canvass, issue circulars, have a place of business ready and hire employees.

Judges:

Hawkins J

Citations:

[1895] 2 QB 1

Cited by:

Appeal From – Robb v Green CA 2-Jan-1895
The lower court had relief granted an order for delivery up to the plaintiff employer of all copies or extracts from the plaintiff’s papers in the defendant’s possession or under his control.
Held: The former employee’s appeal failed.
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
Cited – Balston Ltd v Headline Filters Ltd and Another ChD 1990
The claimant, a manufacturer of filter tubes, employed the defendant as a director. He gave notice to leave, but during his notice period, he was contacted by a customer who informed him of a meeting between that customer and the company at which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Information

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.421353

Robb v Green: CA 2 Jan 1895

The lower court had relief granted an order for delivery up to the plaintiff employer of all copies or extracts from the plaintiff’s papers in the defendant’s possession or under his control.
Held: The former employee’s appeal failed.
Kay LJ said: ‘On whatever ground it is put, it is clear in this case that an injunction ought to be granted . . The other items of relief granted are the delivery up of the list made and the damages. With regard to the first, it seems to me clear that such a document surreptitiously made in breach of the trust reposed in the servant clearly ought to be given up to be destroyed.’

Judges:

Kay LJ

Citations:

[1895] 2 QB 315

Citing:

Appeal From – Robb v Green 1895
An employee intending to enter business for himself may prepare for that step, provided he does not breach terms of his contract of employment or breach the confidence reposed in him by his employers. The duty may be breached by an employee . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Employment

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.421352

British Waterways (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jan 2011

The complainant requested from the public authority information relating to canal and waterways maintenance. The public authority provided part of the information to the complainant while refusing the remainder on grounds of cost and that a proportion of the information was not held. The public authority carried out an internal review and upheld its original decision. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the request is for environmental information and as such should have been dealt with under the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50299370

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.530125

Isle of Wight Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Sep 2010

The complainant requested details of any complaints submitted about enforcing officers at the Isle of Wight Council who issue fixed penalty notices. In view of the history and context of the request, the Council believed the request to be vexatious and therefore claimed that section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applied. The Commissioner has considered the case and is of the view that the issue of vexatiousness is not clear-cut. However, on balance, the Commissioner has decided that section 14(1) was applied correctly. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0171 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50274270

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.531661

Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited: 5 Jul 2002

The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further publication by the second defendants of confidential papers taken from them by the first defendant on her dismissal.
Held: An interlocutory injunction was granted prohibiting the defendants until trial from publishing, disclosing or using information defined as confidential information in a confidential schedule.

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

Unreported, 5 July 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
At first Instance – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.216439

Bangor University (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Apr 2012

The complainant requested information which was used to produce a particular report entitled ‘Alcohol Involved Deaths’. Bangor University refused to provide the information on the basis that it had been provided to it in confidence and it was therefore exempt under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly relied on section 41 of the FOIA for the non disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner has, however, identified some procedural issues surrounding the University’s handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0118 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50432949

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.529374

Olympic Delivery Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2009

The complainant asked the Olympic Delivery Authority (the ODA) for copies of internal audit reports. The relevant reports were entitled ‘Report on General IT Controls’ and – Olympic Security Governance and Strategy Review’. The ODA applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to withhold both reports. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the ODA decided to disclose a redacted version of the IT report because some of the issues were no longer live by the time of the Commissioner’s investigation. The ODA also sought late reliance on section 24(1) and 38(1)(a) and (b) in relation to the security report and section 40(2) in relation to names in both reports. The Commissioner accepted that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) was engaged by the IT report but found that the public interest favoured disclosure of all of the information. The Commissioner also accepted that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) was engaged in respect of all the information in the security report. He agreed that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption in respect of all the information apart from the contents page and part of the executive summary. Regarding the information that could not be withheld under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) from the security report and to which the ODA had applied the exemptions under section 24(1) and 38(1)(a) and (b), the Commissioner found that these exemptions had been incorrectly claimed. Regarding information from the IT report that was not exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and to which the ODA had applied the exemption under section 40(2), the Commissioner found that this exemption had been incorrectly claimed. The Commissioner found breaches of section 10(1), 1(1)(b), 17(1) and 17(1)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50196750

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.532192

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Aug 2012

The complainants requested information relating to the care records of their deceased sister. East Sussex County Council (the Council) confirmed that it holds a relevant care file but refused to disclose it on the basis that it was provided in confidence – citing section 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply section 41(1). He requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0195 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50346570

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.529726

National Policing Improvement Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jul 2009

The complainant asked to be given 7 pieces of information associated with the recording of the offence of murder on the Police National Computer (PNC). The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) complied with parts 1 to 5 of the request but determined that it did not hold information on the PNC under the provisions of section 3(2)(b) of the Act. The NPIA also determined that, if it did hold the PNC information, the provisions of section 12 would apply as compliance with parts 6 and 7 would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner finds that the NPIA holds information on the PNC otherwise than on behalf of the police forces, and therefore section 3(2)(b) does not apply. In failing to inform the complainant that it held PNC information, the NPIA breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act and in failing to do so within 20 working days it breached section 10(1). He agrees with the NPIA that the costs of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore it was not obliged to comply with the request under the provisions of section 12(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 3 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50185989

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.532107

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Jun 2012

The complainant requested information relating to an investigation into allegations of an affair at a secure children’s home. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) provided him with some information, withholding the remainder under the effective conduct of public affairs exemption (section 36) and the personal information exemption (section 40). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the YJB has correctly relied upon section 36(2)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430392

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.529594

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Aug 2013

The complainant requested ICO guidance and also the number of successful case reviews. The ICO provided the complainant with the requested information but it did not do so within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has not complied with section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) in its handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50494781

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.528580

Herefordshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Aug 2013

The complainant requested information as to whether two named employees of Herefordshire Council are related. The Council, relying on section 40(2), declined to provide the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Herefordshire Council correctly relied on section 40(2) not to release the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50487647

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.528574

Hertfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Aug 2013

The complainant has requested from Hertfordshire County Council (the Council) information related to its special educational need provision. The Council applied section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 to the complainant’s request and he therefore does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50493311

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.528575

Gloucester City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Aug 2013

The complainant requested information from Gloucester City Council (the council) relating to internet visits on an officer by officer basis, although he did not require individual names or user IDs. The council refused to comply with the request, relying on the exclusion under section 12(1) and the exemption under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). These provisions relate to requests that would exceed the costs limit and third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on the exclusion under section 12(1) to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner found procedural breaches of section 10(1), 16(1), 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50478914

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.528565

Chambre De Commerce and D’Industrie Metropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (Port De Brest) v Commission: ECFI 19 Sep 2018

(Judgment) Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to preliminary investigations into State aid schemes in the port sector of all Member States – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 – Concept of privacy – Exception relating to the protection of the objectives of inspection, investigation or audit activities – Application of ‘a general presumption – higher public interest

Citations:

T-39/17, [2018] EUECJ T-39/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622610

Clientearth v Commission: ECJ 4 Sep 2018

Provisions Governing The Institutions – Access To Documents – Judgment – Appeal – Access to documents of the EU institutions – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Impact assessment report, draft impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board – Legislative initiatives in respect of environmental matters – Refusal to grant access – Disclosure of the documents requested in the course of the proceedings – Continuing interest in bringing proceedings – Exception relating to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process of an EU institution – General presumption

Citations:

C-57/16, [2018] EUECJ C-57/16P, ECLI:EU:C:2018:660

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.621626