Category: Information

West Dorset District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to building works carried out at a specific property. West Dorset District Council provided the complainant with the requested information and confirmed that no further relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Dorset District Council wrongly handled the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and in doing so, breached regulation 5 of the EIR; and provided the complainant with all the information it holds which falls within the scope of the request and complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50494574
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528830

Kerrier District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Feb 2006

ICO The complainant requested information relating to an earlier complaint he had made about a planning matter, and following receipt of the information complained to the Commissioner as he considered the Council’s response to be out of time. However, the Commissioner considered the matter and decided that the Council had complied with their statutory obligations by providing a response within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50072193
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.533358

Telford and Wrekin Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to how Telford and Wrekin Council (‘the council’) manages a potential conflict of interest in relation to a specific employee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any further information within the scope of the request than that already provided. Therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50494890
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528825

New Milton Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Oct 2013

The complainant requested information from New Milton Town Council (the council) about its decision to commence legal proceedings. The council provided some information in response to his request. The complainant then asked the Commissioner to consider whether any further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held by the council. However, the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a valid response to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50497725
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528800

Sheffield City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to previous information requests and the expenditure of ‘Going Local’ money. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield City Council (‘the council’, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any further information within the scope of the request than that already provided. Therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50495205
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528815

Sheffield City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested the specific ages of employees from Sheffield City Council. The council refused to provide this information. It claimed that it was personal data and therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly identified that the requested information would be personal data, and was correct to rely upon section 40(2) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner identified that the council’s response was provided outside 20 working days from the complainant’s request, and therefore was in breach of section 10(1) of the FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken by the council.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50491595
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528814

Northamptonshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information about who was liable to cover the full cost of the legal challenge to an application to register the playing fields of a former school as a town or village green. He asked five questions about this matter. He wanted a breakdown of the liability, the share of which the public authority was liable, who took the decision, the limits of the costs and a copy of the authorisation sent to the lawyers involved. The public authority provided an answer to the request. It also clarified its position at its internal review. The complainant explained that he remained dissatisfied with two aspects. The Commissioner has considered those two aspects and has determined that the Information was Environmental Information and should have been considered from the outset under the Environmental Information Regulations. He has determined that the exception in 12(4)(a) applies to these two aspects because the requested information is not held by it for the purposes of the Regulations. However he has noted a number of breaches in this case. He has determined that Regulations 9(1), 11(4), and 14(1) were all contravened in this instance. He requires no further remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 9 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50230572
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.532353

Office for Standards In Education (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information concerning the numbers of persons de-registered by Ofsted in relation to their work in early years childcare provision. The complainant also asked for information relating to Ofsted’s decisions in cases where persons have been disqualified from working in early years provision and for details of those cases where Ofsted has received an application to waive a disqualification. The Commissioner has determined that the requested information is the personal data of current and former childcare providers and to disclose this information would contravene the first data protection principle. The Commissioner therefore finds that Ofsted correctly applied section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that Ofsted breached sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10(1) in relation to parts ‘a’ and ‘g’ of the request, and to have breached section 10(1) in relation to the request made on 29 June 2006. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0070 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50139983
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.532354

Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 23 Aug 2021

The complainant has requested information from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’), in relation to footways and unlawful use of e-scooters. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 12(1): Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-65665
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.669381

Warwick District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jan 2011

The complainant requested information relating to various statutory or safety inspections, over a specified period, conducted by the public authority for the council-owned property he lives in. The public authority disclosed information on current inspections but explains that records of previous inspections are not retained by it. The complainant maintains that more information should be held as there are various statutory requirements to hold historical copies of such records. The Commissioner is satisfied that no further information is held by the public authority and that this has highlighted possible shortcomings in the public authority’s record-keeping policies and procedures. He finds that the public authority has breached regulation 11 and regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires no action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0266738
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.530178

Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant made requests to the Child Support Agency, now part of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, for a variety of statistical information about its dealings with its clients. The Child Support Agency disclosed some information to the complainant, but stated that it did not record the rest of the requested information. The Commissioner has investigated the remaining elements of the request and concluded that some of the requested information is not held by CMEC, but that it does hold information relating to two of the requests. The Commissioner has also concluded that to comply with each of those two requests would require CMEC to exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the Act and that therefore it is not obliged to comply with the requests as a whole. However, CMEC should offer the complainant advice and assistance under section 16 of the Act in relation to one of the requests. The Commissioner also finds that CMEC breached section 1(1)(a), section 10(1) and section 17(5) of the Act in its handling of the requests. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0022 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50220025
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.532391

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Central Government): ICO 16 Feb 2015

The complainant requested documents submitted by a company in connection with its request to carry out exploratory drilling at Woodburn Forest, Carrickfergus. The Department failed to provide the complainant with all the relevant information it held until the Commissioner intervened. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department failed to comply with regulations 5(1) and 5(2), 11(3) and 11(4) of the EIR. As the Department has now complied with the request no further steps are required.

EIR 5: Upheld EIR 11: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0553087
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.555082

Wealden District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 3 Jun 2015

In a 14 part request, the complainant has requested information from Wealden District Council (WDC) about its Housing Revenue Account proposals. WDC said information relating to one part of the request is already published and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA. Regarding the remaining 13 parts, it either provided some information or confirmed that it did not hold the specific information requested. The complainant was initially not satisfied with WDC’s response to five parts of his request; this reduced to two parts during the Commissioner’s investigation. The complainant considers that WDC has not disclosed all the relevant information that it holds with respect to these two parts. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wealden District Council has disclosed to the complainant all the information that it holds within the scope of his request, and has complied with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Wealden District Council to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50568974
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.555538

Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Oct 2011

The complainant requested information from Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Bradford MDC) about planning permission for three plots on a development near his residence. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the EIR in that it did not apply the correct legislation when handling the request. He therefore requires Bradford MDC either to provide the information requested in compliance with regulation 5(1) or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0386476
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.530935

Her Majestys Courts Service (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jun 2011

The complainant requested the names and addresses of all individuals summoned for jury service at the Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts in Birmingham in July 2009. Her Majesty’s Courts and Service (HMCS), an executive agency of The Ministry of Justice, refused the request on the basis of sections 40(2), 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b). (In submissions to the Commissioner it also subsequently claimed that the requested information was also exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(c).) The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of the Act but in handling the request HMCS committed a number of procedural breaches of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0189 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50366137
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.530562

Havant Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Jun 2011

The complainant submitted a request to Havant Borough Council for the planning register index from 1977 to 2010. The Council refused the request on the basis that it did not hold a planning register index. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and agreed that although it did not have a specific planning register document; it was able to provide the requested information by extracting it from various sources. The information extracted amounted to 1060 pages and the Council subsequently offered to provide the information free of charge by email, or at a cost of 10p per sheet for hard copies. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulations 5(1) and 5(2) by failing to make the requested information available within the statutory time for compliance. He does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0352028
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.530561

Havant Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Oct 2011

The complainant submitted a request to Havant Borough Council for information about a loft conversion at his property. The Council levied a charge for providing some information, and stated that the remainder of the requested information was not held. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the Council has disclosed all of the information that it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request. However, the Council has breached regulation 8(3) by levying an excessive charge for providing information, and regulation 14(3)(a) by failing to cite the correct exception when stating information was not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0257 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 8 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0325433
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.530968

Lancashire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information concerning plans to build a fence on the fields behind a primary school in Lancaster. Lancashire County Council responded to the request however the complainant asked the Information Commissioner to consider whether she had been provided with all of the information she requested. The Commissioner considered that the requests should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 however he was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the complainant had been provided with all of the recorded information held by the public authority relating to this particular request. He therefore requires no steps to be taken. The Commissioner found breaches of regulation 5(2), 14(1) and 14(2) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50321352
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.530572

IG Index Plc v Cloete: QBD 11 Dec 2013

The defendant applied to have struck out the claim, saying that it was based upon a misuse of documents disclosed during an employment tribunal case, and was an abuse since the claimants had not sought the permission of the Tribunal for a second use of disclosed information. The defendant said that the information had been disclosed to the Information Commissioner.

Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 3789 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 31.22(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Crest Homes Plc v Marks HL 1987
The plaintiffs brought two successive actions against the same defendants (Mr Marks and Wiseoak Homes Ltd) for breach of copyright. They obtained Anton Piller orders in both actions. The documents which the plaintiffs obtained from the defendants in . .
Cited – McBride v The Body Shop International Plc QBD 10-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email . .
Cited – Sybron Corporation v Barclays Bank plc ChD 1985
Scott J said as regards the undertakings implied on giving discovery of documents during litigation that they applied not merely to the documents discovered themselves but also to information derived from those documents whether it be embodied in a . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – IG Index Ltd v Cloete CA 31-Jul-2014
In the course of unfair dismissal proceedings, the defendant had disclosed possession of confidential materials of his former employer. The employer began these proceedings based on the materials. Only at a later point when he appointed solicitors . .
See Also – IG Index Ltd v Cloete QBD 21-Dec-2015
Application by the defendant to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(b) on the grounds that the proceedings amount to pointless and wasteful litigation, the continuation of which to trial serves no useful purpose for the claimant, squanders . .
See Also – IG Index Ltd v Cloete QBD 16-Sep-2016
Order for costs after decision that the action should not be allowed to go to trial. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.518918

Coventry City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2013

ICO The complainant has requested any recorded information held in relation to trees felled in Broad Lane. Coventry City Council (‘the council’) initially applied the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13(1) to the requested information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council retracted its reliance on all exceptions except regulation 13(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld information under the exception for personal data at regulation 13. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0498778
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.528857

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Jun 2011

The complainant requested details of the date a named individual residing at a specified address passed her driving test and gained a full license for driving on the public road. The DVLA refused to provide this information citing section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the DVLA correctly applied section 40(2) of the Act in respect of this information. The Commissioner has also recorded a breach of section 17(1)(c) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0150 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50358666
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.530539

Wiltshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 31 May 2011

The complainant requested information regarding a Wiltshire Police investigation entitled Operation Antler. Requests made by the complainant regarding Operation Antler had previously been deemed vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. The Police did not respond to the request because of this, relying on section 17(6) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the Police satisfied all 3 criteria of section 17(6); it was therefore unreasonable in all the circumstances to issue a further refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50354115
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.530493

Department for Communities and Local Government (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2011

The complainant requested the Department for Communities and Local Government to release information relating to two contracts it had entered into in 2006 and 2008 with Landmark Information Group. The DCLG released some information but refused to release certain sections of the contracts themselves under sections 40(2) and 43(2) of the Act. As the complainant remained dissatisfied, he approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner has considered the application of sections 40(2) and 43(2) of the Act and he has concluded that the remaining information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of these exemptions. He therefore requires no action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50309543
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.530528

South Yorkshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Nov 2009

The complainant made an eight part request for information about the National Firearms Licence Management System. The public authority stated that the majority of the information requested was not held and the Commissioner finds that the public authority complied with the requirement of section 1(1)(a) in relation to these parts of the request. In relation to the information that it confirmed was held, the public authority cited the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 31(1)(a) is engaged and that the public interest favours the maintenance of this exemption. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 10(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) through its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50175323
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.532358

Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Jan 2008

The complainant requested information from the Council in connection with a planning application and disposal of open space relating to the Hunstanton Green / Pier Project. The request was declined by the Council on the basis that the information was subject to legal professional privilege and was therefore exempted under section 42 of the Act. After requesting a copy of the withheld information and further information about the refusal, the Commissioner concluded that although the requests should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the claim that the legal advice it obtained dated 24 January 2006 was subject to legal professional privilege nevertheless applied and that this information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of Regulation 12(5)(b). However, in relation to other information, concerning the instructions to the external legal adviser (and the clarification of these instructions), the Commissioner found that the Council had waived its right to claim legal professional privilege. As a result the Commissioner concluded that this information was not exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) and that it should be released to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
EIR 12.5.b: Partly upheld

[2008] UKICO FER0120148
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.532486

Kent County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information from the council in relation to the proposals for a lorry park to deal with the impact of Operation Stack. The council identified 15 documents falling within the scope of the request and disclosed these to the complainant. However it redacted information from two of the documents under regulation 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner has investigated and found that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged and that although regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged the public interest in maintaining the exception is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50217563
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.532427

Somerton Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Dec 2009

The complainant submitted a request to Somerton Town Council for information about the purchase of a site known as Etsome Terrace, and expenditure undertaken on this site. The Commissioner considers that this information requested by the complainant constitutes environmental information and should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. His decision is that the Council has breached Regulation 5(1) and Regulation 5(2) in failing to disclose information to the complainant and must now do so within 35 days of this notice. The complainant also requested the Council’s Assets and Liability register, and details of the Council’s expenditure in 2002/2003 and 2003/2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with section 1(1)(b) of the Act and must now do so within 35 days of this notice. The Commissioner found that Somerton Town Council also breached section 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50266788
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.532451

National Archives (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Oct 2012

The complainant requested a copy of a file held by the public authority; other related queries were answered. The file was initially withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the Information Commissioner’s investigation the public authority released more of the file, the remaining redactions again being withheld under section 40(2). The Information Commissioner finds that, where cited, section 40(2) is engaged and that disclosure of the information would breach the Data Protection Act 1998. Although it has agreed to disclose further information the public authority has not yet made this available. Therefore, the Information Commissioner formally requires it to disclose the information, as agreed, and advise the complainant when it is available

[2012] UKICO FS50429038
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.529941

Wolverhampton City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Nov 2009

Having received a requested survey report on 6 February 2008 from Wolverhampton City Council (the Council), the complainant submitted a further request to the Council on 3 April 2009 for certain figures and test results associated to the survey report. A response to the request was not provided other than an acknowledgement of receipt dated 7 April 2009. The Commissioner found that to the extent that any information held would be environmental information the public authority has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by not providing a response within 20 working days. To the extent that this does not apply the Commissioner found that by not providing a response within 20 working days the Council breached section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the information or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with regulation 14 of the EIR and/or section 1(1) of the Act within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50256703
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.532365

St Helens Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Nov 2009

The complainant requested all material held by St Helens Council (the ‘Council’) relating to protected pay for Council employees. The Council provided a series of information to the complainant but withheld some information because it was protected by legal professional privilege. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council voluntarily disclosed further information to the complainant, but maintained that legal advice it had obtained was exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council was entitled to withhold the legal advice under section 42(1) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 17(1) (b) of the Act by failing to specify the exemption in its response to the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50190528
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.532359

ICBC Financial Leasing Co Ltd v Consultants Group Commercial Funding Corporation (T/A CG Commercial Finance): ComC 8 Jul 2016

The court was asked whether, by providing lease finance for the acquisition of four LNG carriers in a transaction which did not involve the defendant intermediary, the claimant acted in breach of a Confidentiality Letter in which it had promised not to circumvent CGCF and not to use confidential information disclosed to it by CGCF for an improper purpose.

Males J
[2016] EWHC 1683 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Information, Contract

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566829

Department for Culture Media and Sport (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2009

The complainant had made a number of requests to the public authority prior to this case. The first request dealt with in this Decision Notice (the original request’) was for all information which had been redacted from documents released as a result of one of the previous requests on the basis that it was not relevant to that request. In response to the original request the public authority provided some information but withheld the remainder by reference to section 36(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The complainant made a supplementary request for a copy of the qualified person’s reasonable opinion in respect of the application of section 36 to the original request, and the date on which the opinion had been made. The public authority withheld that information on the grounds that it too was exempt, under section 36(2)(b) and (c). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed the information relating to the original request. The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose part of the withheld information in the supplementary request. In relation to both the original and supplementary requests the Commissioner decided that the public authority had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(2).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50147876
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.532399

Health and Safety Executive (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Feb 2013

The complainant has requested correspondence held following the death of Robert Fidoe, a young boy who tragically died after falling from his bike into a canal lock at Stourport Basin in 2011. After some confusion about the terms of its initial response, the Health and Safety Executive confirmed that it was refusing to provide this information on the basis of the exemption at section 30(1)(b). It argued that an investigation into this matter was ongoing and that the public interest therefore favoured maintaining this exemption. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(b) as a basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50459156
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.527968

Office of Communications (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant requested a copy of ‘the IPCC complaint referred to in [Ofcom’s] Broadcast Bulletin Issue 114 of 21 July 2008. The public authority initially refused the request under the exemption provided by section 44 of the Act, that disclosure of the information was prohibited under any other enactment. Ofcom cited the prohibition on disclosure provided by section 393(1) of the Communications Act 2003. At internal review, Ofcom advised the complainant that the information he requested was now refused under section 21 of the Act because it was available to him by another means. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested is available to the complainant as directed by Ofcom. However the requested information contains environmental information and Ofcom failed to consider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations. Some of the information was therefore not correctly refused by the public authority under section 21 of the Act and should have been refused under Regulation 6(1)(b). By its delayed responses, Ofcom breached Regulations 11(4) and 6(2)(a). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0010 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50242937
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.532445