Category: Information

Open Rights Group and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 3 Oct 2019

Challenge to the lawfulness of the immigration exemption in paragraph 4, Schedule 2, of the Data Protection Act 2018

Judges:

Mr Justice Supperstone

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2562 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 546, [2020] 1 WLR 811

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Information

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.642713

Tower Hamlets Homes (Decision Notice) FS50369381: ICO 16 Aug 2011

The complainant asked Tower Hamlets Homes to provide information relating to its technical services. The public authority provided some information but maintained that further information was exempt by virtue of section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit). During the investigation the public authority sought to aggregate this request with two other requests made by the complainant thereby exempting all three by virtue of section 12 (cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit). It also sought to introduce section 44 (prohibitions of disclosure) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not able to aggregate the requests, it could not apply section 12 and, also, that it could not rely on section 44. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50369381

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.530794

Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins: TCC 23 Nov 2012

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3294 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins and Another TCC 1-Nov-2012
The claimant had obtained a without notice order restraining the first defendant, its former senior consultant from deleting or otherwise interfering with emails from his time with the company. The defendant said that there had been no emergency . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins and Another CA 19-Jul-2013
The court was asked whether the appellant company was entitled to an order requiring its former Chief Executive Officer, after the termination of his appointment, to give it access to the content of emails relating to its business affairs, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466388

The University Council, University College London (Education): ICO 4 Mar 2021

The complainant has requested information regarding the number of Russian nationals that were applicants and those that were offered a place on the mathematical computation course in the academic year 2020/21 at University College London (UCL) and other related matters. UCL disclosed some information but withheld the exact number of Russian applicants/offerees for the course, restricting its response to ‘five or less’ . UCL considered that providing the exact number would disclose personal information and breach section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL has incorrectly cited section 40(2) as she considers that the withheld information is not personal data. UCL has also breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the exact numbers that have been withheld under section 40(2).
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-76419

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.659849

Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins and Another: TCC 1 Nov 2012

The claimant had obtained a without notice order restraining the first defendant, its former senior consultant from deleting or otherwise interfering with emails from his time with the company. The defendant said that there had been no emergency warranting the without notice order, and that no proprietary interest existed in such material.

Judges:

Edwards-Stuart J

Citations:

[2012] 2 CLC 795, [2012] EWHC 2952 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins TCC 23-Nov-2012
. .
At TCC – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins and Another CA 19-Jul-2013
The court was asked whether the appellant company was entitled to an order requiring its former Chief Executive Officer, after the termination of his appointment, to give it access to the content of emails relating to its business affairs, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465740

Commission for Equality and Human Rights (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2007

ICO Central government – The complainant submitted a request for information about the ethnicity of claimants to the Employment Tribunal Service and the outcome of each claimant’s case. The public authority refused the request on the basis that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority did hold some information which fell within the scope of the complainant’s request and by failing to confirm that it held this information it breached section 1 of the Act. However, the Commissioner accepts that to provide this information would have exceeded the appropriate cost limit.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50102436

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.533090

Sussex Police (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2007

IPO The complainant made five information requests to the public authority. One file was ultimately deemed to be exempt under Section 40(1) by the public authority and it claimed not to hold the other information. The Commissioner investigated whether he agreed with the use of the Section 40(1) exemption regarding this request, and then considered whether it was the most applicable exemption for all of the requested pieces of information. He has concluded that the section 40(1) exemption did or would have applied to all of the information. He further concluded that the public authority was not in fact obliged to comply with 1(1)(a) in this regard by virtue of section 40(5). In failing to inform the complainant that section 40(5) applied the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act. However the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in the light of the contents of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50162201

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.533105

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 11 Mar 2021

The complainant requested documents relating to a shooting club. The Home Office refused the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA – as it would take it over the appropriate cost limit to determine if the information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(2) of the FOIA was cited correctly and so the Home Office was not required to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-39651

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.659829

Tower Hamlets Homes (Decision Notice) FS50362243: ICO 16 Aug 2011

The complainant asked Tower Hamlets Homes to provide information relating to its management accounts. The public authority provided some information but maintained that further information was either not held or that it would exceed the appropriate limit to deal with the request. During the investigation the public authority sought to aggregate this request with two other requests made by the complainant thereby exempting all three by virtue of section 12 (cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit). It also sought to introduce section 44 (prohibitions of disclosure) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was incorrect to claim that some information was not held. He also finds that it was not able to aggregate the requests and that it could not apply section 12. He further finds that that the public authority was not able to rely on section 44. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50362243

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.530792

Blackpool Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jul 2011

The complainant asked the Council to disclose copies of four complaints it received from members of the public concerning the alleged right of way across a piece of land he believes to be private. Initially, the Council responded to the request under the Act and refused to disclose the information to the complainant under section 41 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council accepted that the requested information is environmental information and therefore that the complainant’s request should have been considered under the EIR. It informed the Commissioner that it had reconsidered the request and now wished to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner considered the application of regulation 13 of the EIR to the withheld information and concluded that it does apply. He did however find the Council in breach of regulations 14(1), 14(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0195 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0371913

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.530638

Shapovalov v Ukraine: ECHR 31 Jul 2012

The claimant, a Ukrainian journalist said that he had (contrary to the Ukranian Information Act 1992) been refused access by administrative authorities during the 2004 elections to certain information and meetings. He relied on article 6 because the Ukrainian courts had wrongly failed on procedural grounds to consider the merits of his complaints.
Held: The complaint succeeded. He relied also on article 10 because of the administrative authorities’ interference with his access. The Government made no submissions on the merits of this complaint, but the Court rejected it on the ground that there was no evidence of interference with his performance of his journalistic activity.

Citations:

45835/05 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1665

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Shapovalova v Ukraine ECHR 22-Sep-2011
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464364

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Other): ICO 1 Mar 2021

The complainant has requested the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) to provide all documents of any kind which contain any mention of the term ‘functus officio’ for the period 1 August 2016 to 1 February 2018. The PHSO refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 40, 42 and 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with one or more of the exemptions cited; sections 40, 42 and 44(1)(a) of the FOIA.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 44(1)(a): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-45092

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.659844

Brake and Another v Guy and Others (Preliminary Issue): ChD 25 Mar 2021

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 670 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Brake and Another v Guy and Others ChD 25-Mar-2021
Judgment on the trial of part of the claim for a final injunction and damages in respect of the alleged accessing, retention and deployment by the defendants of emails said to be private and confidential to the claimants and held within three email . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.660066

South Cheshire Catholic Multi-Academy Trust (Education): ICO 15 Mar 2021

St Thomas More Catholic High School (‘the School’) is a member of the South Cheshire Catholic Multi-Academy Trust, which is the responsible public authority for the purposes of this decision. The complainant submitted a request to the School for information associated with a disability discrimination claim. The School released relevant information it holds but the complainant considers that the School holds further relevant information within the scope of one part of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the School holds no further information that falls within the scope of the complainant’s request for the amount paid to a barrister. The Commissioner therefore finds that the School complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The School breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any remedial steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-43862

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.659848

HM Treasury (Central Government): ICO 9 Mar 2021

The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Chancellor from The Duke and Duchess of York concerning the late Jeffrey Epstein or his business and charitable organisations made between the period 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2001. Her Majesty’s Treasury (the Treasury) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 40(5) (third party personal data) and 37(2) (communications with Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Family) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Treasury is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding whether it holds the requested information.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-46721

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.659828

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 28 Oct 2020

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about whether the Aldermaston Women’s Peace Camp was included on any watchlist or database of domestic extremism and what the criteria were for inclusion on such a list. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 23(5) of FOIA.
FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-42354-B0R3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.656152

Northumberland County Council (Local Government): ICO 4 Mar 2021

The complainant requested information relating to the Council’s duties under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) Operating Guidance. The Council refused the two requests because it said they were not valid requests for recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that both requests were valid under section 8 of FOIA. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the Council has failed to comply with section 10(1) of FOIA in failing to issue a substantive response. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the requests.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 8: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-46775

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.659841

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 15 Sep 2020

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence seeking copies of ‘Defence Air Safety Occurrence Reports’ filed by air traffic control personnel at RAF Wittering for the period November 2014 to March 2018 . The MOD refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD cannot rely on section 14(1) as a basis to refuse to comply with this request.
FOI 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-47061-F3Z6

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.656066

Smith and East Ayrshire Council: SIC 10 Feb 2015

SIC Application of the Data Protection Act 1998 to independent coal report
On 17 January 2014, Mr Smith asked East Ayrshire Council (the Council) for information concerning the application of the Data Protection Act 1998 to an independent coal report.
The Council responded by providing some information to Mr Smith and withholding other information under various exemptions. Following a review, Mr Smith remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had partially failed to respond to Mr Smith’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. She found that the Council has correctly applied the exemptions to most of the withheld information, but that it had been incorrect to withhold some of it on the basis of its effect on the free and frank exchange of views. She required the Council to disclose this information.

Citations:

[2015] ScotIC 018 – 2015

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.543115

East Tuddenham Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jul 2011

The complainant requested, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 photocopies of around thirty years’ of East Tuddenham Parish Council minutes. The Council said that it was unable to provide copies of the minutes because it was unable to photocopy them. It asked the complainant whether he was prepared to inspect them instead. The complainant was not. The Commissioner has come to a mixed verdict in this case. For the minutes that were contained in the minute books, he has found that it was not reasonably practicable to provide photocopies of them and has found in favour of the Council. However, there were some loose minutes and for them he has found that they should have been provided to the complainant in copy form. He finds a breach of section 1(1)(b) and 10(1) in not providing this information in twenty working days. The Commissioner also noted breaches of section 11(1) and 11(3). The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50347199

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.530649

Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v Aberdeen City Council: SIC 10 Feb 2015

SIC European Offshore Wind Farm Development Centre and Related Substation at Blackdog, Aberdeenshire – On 28 May 2014, Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd (Trump International) asked Aberdeen City Council (the Council) for information concerning the European Offshore Wind Farm Development Centre (EOWFDC)1 and related substation at Blackdog, Aberdeenshire. The Council disclosed some information and stated that it did not hold other information.
The Commissioner investigated and found that, in responding to the request, the Council had failed to identify and retrieve some information covered by the request. She required the Council to respond to Trump International’s requirement for review for parts 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the request in terms other than regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs.

Citations:

[2015] ScotIC 016 – 2015

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.543118

David Willson and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: SIC 26 Nov 2013

On 6 August 2013, Mr Willson asked the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (the SPSO) to provide the information it had used to reach certain conclusions in relation to a complaint it had investigated, and for correspondence with the Minister for Transport. The SPSO withheld all information under section 26(a) of FOISA, and upheld this decision after review. Mr Willson requested and received information which was his own personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA), but believed that some information had not been provided. He applied to the Commissioner for a decision on how his request had been dealt with under FOISA.
The Commissioner found that the information held by the SPSO in relation to Mr Willson’s request was exempt from disclosure under section 26(a) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 269 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.522797

H A Cook and Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland: SIC 26 Nov 2013

On 4 December 2012, Mr Cook asked Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) for the dates when two named Care Commission Officers were awarded their Regulation of Care Awards. SCSWIS refused the request under section 14(2) of FOISA, on the basis that it was repeated. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 268 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.522801

University of London (Education): ICO 2 Mar 2021

The complainant has requested information about LLB law degree examinations from the University of London (‘the University’). The University has refused the request under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests) and considers that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-42264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.659851

University of Essex (Education): ICO 11 Mar 2021

The complainant has requested the University of Essex (the university) to disclose information relating to the cancellation of a Criminology event. The university refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 22, 31, 36, 41 and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA. She has however recorded a breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as the university failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-44069

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.659850

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 21 Sep 2020

The complainant requested information from the MoD about electronic radiosondes. The MoD has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The MoD must provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-40829-F7Q1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.656065

The Applicant and Scottish Ambulance Service Board: SIC 4 Dec 2020

SASB was asked for information detailing any agreement regarding a named person and the training of Scottish Ambulance Service personnel at a former medical practice.
SASB refused to provide information it held on the basis that it was personal data which it considered to be exempt from disclosure.
The Commissioner investigated and found that SASB had incorrectly identified and withheld information which did not fall within the scope of the Applicant’s request and had failed to provide the Applicant with her appeal rights.
Following an investigation, Commissioner was satisfied that SASB had carried out adequate searches and that SASB held no information which would satisfy the request.

Citations:

[2020] ScotIC 153 – 2020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.659435

Nottingham College (Education): ICO 12 Mar 2021

The complainant requested from Nottingham College (‘the college’) information regarding the amount spent on external consultants. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner also finds that the college did not comply with its obligations under section 17 of the FOIA (time for compliance). The Commissioner does not require the college to take any steps as a result of this notice.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-53278

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.659842

Common Council of The City of London (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Feb 2011

ICO The complainant contacted the Common Council of the City of London (‘the CoL’) on 31 May 2010 to ask whether it intended to release further information concerning Scientology in light of the recent Information Tribunal hearing of Mr William Thackeray v Information Commissioner and The Common Council of the City of London (EA/2009/0095). The CoL responded refusing to accept the complainant’s email of 31 May 2010 as a valid information request under the Act, as it considered it only asked for its opinion. The complainant requested an internal review but again this was refused on the same grounds. He therefore approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner has given the matter careful consideration and he has concluded that the complainant’s email of 31 May 2010 was a valid request for information under the Act. He has therefore ordered the CoL to comply with section 1(1) of the Act i.e. to confirm or deny whether it holds any recorded information of the description specified in the request and, if it does, to either provide that information or issue an appropriate refusal notice within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50327767

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.530193

Common Council of The City of London (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Feb 2011

The complainant requested all internal communications held by either the City Solicitor’s Department or the Rates Collection Office that concern mandatory and discretionary rate relief for scientology organisations between two set dates. The public authority explained that it held recorded information and provided some of it. However, it withheld further information by virtue of sections 31(1)(d) [prejudice to the assessment and collection of any tax], 40(2) [third party personal data], 41 [information provided in confidence] and 42(1) [legally privileged material]. The complainant approached the Commissioner as he remained dissatisfied with the amount of information disclosed. The Commissioner has carefully considered the case and has decided that for the information covered by section 42(1) the exemption was engaged and the public interest favoured maintaining it. He has found that section 31(1)(d) was not engaged and section 41(1) was only partially engaged. He has found that section 40(2) applies for some of the redacted names but not to others. He has also found a breach of section 16(1) and procedural breaches of section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1) and 17(1). The Commissioner requires that the information identified in the Decision section of this Notice is provided to the complainant within 35 calendar days. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0043 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50277373

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.530192

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Sep 2006

The complainant requested a copy of a letter received by the UK government and copied to the Commissioner regarding alleged deficiencies in the implementation of Directive 95/46/EC by the UK. Although the Commissioner accepts that in some respects the request could have been better handled, in particular the manner of the refusal of the request, he remains of the view that he was correct not to communicate the requested information to the complainant. In the light of that conclusion, the notice requires no further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50091810

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.533560

Bourne v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 18 Jun 2014

SIC Risk Register for Edinburgh Tram Project: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 15 February 2014, Mrs Bourne asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for information about the detailed risk register for versions of the Business Cases from 2003 to 2011. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the requirement for review within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 134 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.535083

Thomas v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis: CA 28 Nov 1996

In an action for damages and false imprisonment, the defendant police officers sought to have introduced the claimant’s previous criminal record, which was expired under the 1974 Act.
Held: The judge had been correct not to follow practice in criminal cases on such questions. The purpose of the Act in civil proceedings was to allow a person with spent convictions to present himself as of good character. The admission of the convictions was wrong in law, but it had not led to any substantial injustice.
Evans LJ said that the court: ‘has . . to consider whether the likely significance of the fact of a previous conviction in the . . eyes [of the court or tribunal] is such that [it] may be unfairly prejudiced against [that party] . . The adverb ‘unfairly’ is a necessary qualification, because some prejudice is inevitable except in cases of total and obvious irrelevance where . . the evidence should be excluded in any event. When relevance and prejudice coexist, then the judge can . . decide whether the potential prejudice to one party outweighs the prima facie right of the other party to introduce evidence of previous convictions [to the extent that they are relevant.]’
Sir Richard Scott VC said that if justice cannot be done without the evidence of the conviction being admitted, it will be admitted.

Judges:

Evans LJ, Sir Richard Scott V-C

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1052

Statutes:

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Nye CACD 1982
When there are previous convictions which are spent, it is not possible to refer to the defendant as a person of good character. It is however possible for a modified direction to be given to the effect that the defendant has no previous convictions . .
Cited – Clifford v Clifford 1961
The court stated the common law position of the cross examination of a defendant on his antecedents. Cairns J said: ‘The range of permissible cross-examination as to credit is, however, a very wide one. It has never, I think, been doubted that a . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v P HL 1991
The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: . .
Cited – Reynolds v Phoenix CA 1978
The court discussed the effect of the 1974 Act on the admission of a spent conviction which was relevant or potentially relevant (depending on the trial judge’s findings as to ‘materiality’ for insurance purposes) to a liability issue in the case: . .

Cited by:

Cited – A v B EAT 19-Feb-2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of Evidence – Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 – whether employment judge right to rule that justice could not be done without evidence of the employee’s spent . .
See Also – Thompson v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis; Hsu v Same CA 20-Feb-1997
CS Damages of 200,000 pounds by way of exemplary damages had been awarded against the police for unlawful arrest and assault.
Held: The court gave a guideline maximum pounds 50,000 award against police for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140919

Bronckers v Commission (Access To Documents – Agreement Between The European Community and The United Mexican States – Spirit Drinks – Judgment): ECFI 25 Nov 2020

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks – Documents submitted within the framework of the Joint Committee – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations – Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party

Citations:

T-166/19, [2020] EUECJ T-166/19, ECLI:EU:T:2020:557

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.660649

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Other): ICO 12 Mar 2021

The complainant submitted two requests to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) for its ‘report into complaints against government departments for 2018/19.’ The PHSO refused to provide the information as it considered it to be exempt from disclosure under section 22(1) of the FOIA (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner is satisfied that the PHSO is entitled to rely on section 22(1) of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the information and that, at the time of each request, the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA as the PHSO failed to respond to the complainant’s second request within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 22: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-44027

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.659843

Police Federation of England and Wales (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 8 Mar 2021

The complainant has requested from the Police Federation of England and Wales (the Federation) information about negotiations between its representatives and Surrey Police, on the issue of over-claimed rest days in lieu (RDIL). The Federation withheld some information, which included meeting minutes and legal advice, under sections 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 42 (Legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held some information, citing section 40(5B) (Personal information), and it said that it did not hold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Federation was entitled to apply sections 36 and 42 to withhold information. However, she found that it was not entitled to rely on section 40(5B) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information in respect of part (6) of the request. She also found that it did hold some information in respect of part (7) of the request, which it had said that it did not hold, and to which it failed to apply a valid non-disclosure exemption. The Commissioner found breaches of sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in respect of this information. The Commissioner requires the Federation to issue a fresh response to part (6) of the request, which does not rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA, and to disclose to the complainant the information it holds which falls within the scope of part (7) of the request.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint upheld FOI 36: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-47737

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.659845

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Central Government): ICO 2 Mar 2021

The complainant has requested copies of monitoring reports from Torbay Council, relating to sites receiving Land Release Funding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) is entitled to rely upon regulation 12(5)(g) to withhold information. The MHCLG is entitled to rely upon regulation 13 to redact some council officer names however the name of the Senior Responsible Owner (‘SRO’) should be disclosed. The MHCLG responded outside of statutory timescales and therefore breached regulations 11 and 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the name of the SRO in the monitoring reports.
EIR 11: Complaint upheld EIR 13: Complaint partly upheld EIR 12(5)(g): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-47574

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.659837

Barclay v Barclay: QBD 24 Feb 2020

Application on short notice for an interim non-disclosure order in this claim, which is based on allegations of breach of confidence, misuse of private information and breach of data protection rights.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 424 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.648897

Wolverhampton City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Mar 2012

The complainant requested information in respect of Wolverhampton City Council’s (WCC) expenditure on Adopted Child Support Allowance, grants to adoptive parents and reimbursement of costs for prospective adoptive parents for the financial year from 2010-2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that WCC did not deal with the request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 2000. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with section 1(1) of the Act by either: confirming whether the requested information is held, and if so, disclosing it to the applicant, or issuing a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50426423

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.529369

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Dec 2008

The complainant wrote to the Information Commissioner to request notes of telephone conversations and internal correspondence regarding complaints he had previously submitted against the BBC. The Commissioner responded to the request by disclosing internal correspondence relating to his investigations into these complaints. However the Commissioner withheld the legal advice related to the complaints under the exemption in section 42 of the Act (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner, in his role as regulator, has now reviewed his handling of the request and has found that the withheld information constitutes the personal data of the complainant and that therefore the correct approach would have been to refuse to confirm or deny if the information was held under section 40(5)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50193355

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.532788

Chhabra v West London Mental Health NHS: QBD 1 Jun 2012

The claimant, a consultant forensic psychiatrist sought to restrain the defendants from going ahead with disciplinary proceedings as to alleged breaches of patient confidentiality.
Held: The application succeeded. The complaint was properly as to misconduct, and not capacity, and the proposed method of investigation was inappropriate.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1735 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust CA 19-Mar-2010
The doctor had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. He now appealed against the EAT’s reversal of the finding of unfair dismissal. The original procedure adopted was appropriate to a lesser level of misconduct, but the employer had later . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra CA 25-Jan-2013
The Trust appealed against a decision that its procedures in seeking to discipline the respondent consultant forensic psychiatrist were wrongly applied and the associated injunction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The conduct complained of was of . .
At first instance – West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra SC 18-Dec-2013
The trust sought to begin disciplinary proceedings against the claimant, a consultant forensic psychologist alleging gross misconduct. She was said to have left confidential patient records on a train.
Held: Gross misconduct should be conduct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Health Professions, Employment

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461888

London Borough of Enfield (Local Government): ICO 9 Mar 2021

The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between the Leader of the Council and its Chief Executive. The London Borough of Enfield initially withheld some information before informing the complainant that it held no relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough did not disclose all the information to which the complainant was entitled within 20 working days and therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. However, she considers that it has disclosed all the information it holds in recorded form. The London Borough also breached Regulation 11(4) of the EIR because it failed to complete its internal review (reconsideration) within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-52695

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.659833

Reid v Price: QBD 13 Mar 2020

Assessment of damages for breach of confidence, misuse of private information and breach of contract, and compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998. The parties had been married, but following the divorce, the defendant had obtained sensitive private recordings of the claimant’s sexual activities. She was persuaded to give undertakings as to their care. She had been found to have breached those undertakings.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 594 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Damages

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.648933

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 23 Aug 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to the Environment Agency’s (EA) investigation into allegations made about a particular member of staff. The EA refused to disclose the information, citing regulations 13, 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 13: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0726317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.628280

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 22 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to the roll out schedule of Universal Credit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take to issue a substantive response to the complainant under the Act by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50637830

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.583715

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 12 Feb 2018

The complainant made a request for information relating to a fire that occurred at a site in Staffordshire. The Environment Agency provided the complainant with some information but withheld some information under regulation 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 EIR. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the application of exceptions to four particular pieces of withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency has correctly applied regulation 13 EIR to the fours documents being withheld. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
EIR 13: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0696714

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.617464

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 7 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to flood defences between the Environment Agency (EA) and other authorities from 1 January 2015 onwards. The EA refused to disclose the requested information citing regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation some information was disclosed to the complainant. With regards to the remaining withheld information, the Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR apply and that the public interest rests in maintaining these exceptions. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. The Commissioner has however recorded a breach of regulations 14(2) and 11 of the EIR in this case, as the EA failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days and failed to respond to the complainant’s request for an internal review within 40 working days.
EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(d): Not upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 11: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0645982

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.583731

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 9 Jan 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for information related to the implementation of the Universal Credit Programme. DWP confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It advised the complainant on two occasions that it required further time to consider the public interest test. To date, DWP has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that DWP breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires DWP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a substantive response to their information request. If DWP decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest consideration.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50654111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.579755

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 29 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested information relating to the improvements agreed for the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot (the depot). The Environment Agency (EA) released some information but refused to disclose the majority of information citing regulations 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR applies in this case. However, the Commissioner has decided that she has received insufficient evidence from the EA to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR applies so she requires the EA to disclose the requested information withheld under this exception.
EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0605855

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.572971

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 7 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested the Environment Agency (EA) to disclose a copy of the Environment Risk Assessment (ERA) for the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot (RBPSD). The EA responded advising the complainant that it does not hold the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the EA does not hold the requested information and is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0718339

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.617586

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 18 Dec 2017

The complainant has requested information on the successful candidates for a position he applied for. The Environment Agency (EA) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50699455

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.602494

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 24 Jan 2017

The complainant requested copies of emails sent from the email account of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Department for Work and Pensions denied holding information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. DWP is not required to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50624477

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.579754

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 1 Apr 2019

The complainant has requested information associated with an energy-from-waste plant at Runcorn. The Environment Agency (EA) has relied on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR; its position being that it does not hold information in recorded form that addresses the complainant’s requests and questions. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: EA breached regulation 5(2) with regard to part 5 of the request. EA cannot rely on regulation 12(4)(a) with regard to part 1 and part 3b) of the request. EA was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) with regard to parts 2, 3a, 4, 6 and 8 of the request. The Commissioner requires the EA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: In line with its duty under regulation 6 of the EIR (advice and assistance) the EA must clarify part 5 of the request with the complainant and then provide a response to the clarified request that complies with the EIR.
EIR 5: Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0786647

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.638084

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 28 Jul 2015

The complainant has requested the names of charities and companies who have given placements to Mandatory Work Activity or Help to Work participants (Community Work Placements). The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relied on section 14(2) (repeated request) not to meet the complainant’s request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP’s reliance on section 14(2) was erroneous. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response under the FOIA without relying on section 14(2) of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50555700

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.555582

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 27 Jun 2017

The complainant has requested the Environment Agency (EA) to disclose the name of the successful candidate for a position he applied for. The EA refused to disclose this information citing section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under section 40 of the FOIA. As a result the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50683983

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.593753

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 25 Oct 2016

The complainant requested a list of all current team email addresses and the associated team title and physical location of the team to which each email address belongs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12 of the FOIA. She also finds that DWP failed to provide sufficient advice and assistance as required by section 16 of the FOIA. However she does not require any remedial steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50624111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.572860

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 14 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information from the Environment Agency (EA) relating to the management of flood risk, water flows and water abstraction near to his property. The EA refused these requests, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, on the basis that the requests are vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 11: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0699751

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.617465

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 21 May 2018

The complainant has requested information from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) about various matters. DWP has relied on section 12 – costs of compliance exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse this request. She notes that the response to the request was provided outside of the statutory 20 day time limit and accordingly DWP has breached section 10 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50675255

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.617782

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 31 Jan 2019

The complainant has requested information associated with activity at a particular site. The Environment Agency (EA) released some information and relied on regulation 13(1) of the EIR (third party personal data) to withhold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The EA is not obliged to confirm or deny it holds any information falling within the scope of the request under regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR, as to do so would release the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner does not require the EA to take any remedial steps.
EIR 13: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0763978

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.634858

Ferry Hill Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Jul 2005

The complainant requested information in relation to Council allotments and alleged that he was dissatisfied with the Fees Notice issued in response to his request. The Council stated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit as identified in the Fees Regulations but they agreed to supply the information on receipt of the full costs. After approaching the Council for clarification the ICO was satisfied that they had estimated the costs in accordance with the Regulations. However, they did not give the complainant the opportunity to refine their request or offer to supply the information that could be provided within the parameters of the appropriate limit. The Decision Notice therefore stipulated that the Council must offer appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant.
FOI 9: Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50075378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.533232

A, Re (Disclosure of Third Party Information): FD 16 Feb 2012

The mother and father disputed contact. It was known that a third party had made a confidential allegation of sexual abuse against the father. Disclosure was sought. The application was resisted on the basis that the woman’s own health would be damaged.
Held: The order was declined. Jackson J said: ‘in this highly unusual situation it is not possible for information about X’s identity and allegations to be disclosed to the parties. My reasons are these:
(1) I accept the medical evidence about the potentially serious effect of disclosure on X’s health.
(2) The information once disclosed, cannot be controlled. X could not be assured that her identity as an alleged victim of sexual abuse would remain confidential within the proceedings.
(3) X’s identity and her allegations are inextricably intertwined.
(4) For the court to order disclosure when it is not prepared to order X to give evidence would risk harming X without achieving anything valuable for A and her parents. The nature and extent of X’s allegations mean that they could not readily be proved or disproved by reference to third parties or independent sources. It is therefore unlikely that any outcome achieved in X’s absence would clear the air between the parties or provide a solid foundation for future arrangements for A.
(5) The court must have regard to the nature of the interests being balanced, namely contact on one hand and physical and mental health on the other.’

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 180 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – In re A (A Child) SC 12-Dec-2012
A woman, X, had made an allegation in confidence she had been sexually assaulted as a child. The court was asked whether that confidence could be overriden to allow an investigation to protect if necessary a child still living with the man. Evidence . .
Appeal from – In re J (A Child: Disclosure) CA 21-Sep-2012
X had complained in confidence of an alleged assault by the father of A. Social services had wished to include that disclosure in an investigation of J’s care of A. . .
Appeal from – In re X CA 24-Jul-2012
X had made, in confidence, an allegation that she had been abused as a child. The alleged perpetrator was now in another relationship, and with children. X resisted the disclosure of her complaint.
Held: An order was made for disclosure. There . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460514

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 3 Jul 2019

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information regarding which army chiefs claimed the Continuity of Education Allowance and or were granted INVOLSEP, a benefit paid to service personnel in certain circumstances for undertaking service unaccompanied by their family. The MOD relied on section 40(5) (personal data) of FOIA to refuse to confirm whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50807023

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.643240

Northumbria Police (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jul 2012

The complainant has requested information concerning any press statements that the public authority has made concerning copyright complaints in May and June 2011. The public authority provided the information but the complainant did not accept that he had been given all the information held. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with the request and he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435643

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.529649