University of Warwick (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Dec 2011

The complainant has requested that the University of Warwick (the university) provide him with an electronic copy of a file held in its Modern Records Centre. The university refused to provide the information under section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner) decision is that the university has correctly refused the information under section 21(1) of the FOIA as the information is reasonably accessible to the complainant via the university’s Modern Records Centre. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50412611
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.531213

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2009

The complainant requested various pieces of information from the DVLA regarding its Continuous Registration (CR) scheme. The DVLA stated that sections 12 and 14 of the Act did not require it to comply with the request. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the DVLA provided some information but maintained its position that it had correctly applied sections 12 and 14 of the Act and that it was not required to comply with the request. The DVLA also stated that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s view is that the DVLA applied sections 12 and 14 of the Act correctly and that, based on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner found that the DVLA breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act but requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0119 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50179473
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.532317

Department for Culture Media and Sport (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Dec 2009

The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between The Prince of Wales and government Ministers at the public authority over an eight month period. The complainant also requested a list and schedule of this correspondence. The public authority initially relied on the interaction of sections 37(1)(a) and 37(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any correspondence falling within the scope of the requests. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority confirmed to the complainant that it held correspondence falling within the scope of his requests but it considered this information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1). The public authority also stated that although it did not believe any of the information to be environmental information, if it was it would be exempt on the basis of regulations 12(5)(d), 12(5)(f) and 13(1). The public authority also confirmed that it believed that a list and/or schedule of correspondence sent by The Prince of Wales would be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1) of the Act and that a list and/or schedule of information sent to The Prince of Wales would be exempt on the basis of sections 37(1)(a) and 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the correspondence is environmental information and thus should be considered under the EIR rather than the Act. However the Commissioner has concluded that the correspondence is exempt on the basis of regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also concluded that a list and/or schedule of correspondence sent by The Prince of Wales are exempt on the basis of 12(5)(f) or the exemptions within the Act cited by the public authority. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50080243
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.532398

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Oct 2012

The complainant asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for research papers related to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided some information but refused to provide the remainder on the basis of the following exemptions: prejudice to international relations (section 27), formulation and development of government policy (section 35) and unfair processing of personal data (section 40). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is entitled to withhold the majority of the remainder on the basis of the exemptions it has cited. However, it should disclose a small amount of personal data that it previously withheld. In failing to provide this personal data, it contravened the requirements of section 1 and 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50433493
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.529910

Leicestershire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

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

[2008] UKICO FS50155398
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.532542

Chesterfield Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Dec 2009

The complainant requested a plan of an allotment site and the names of the owners of the plots from it. The public authority responded that the information was held by the allotment association on its own behalf and that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant contested this position and the public authority maintained its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has considered the case and believes that the public authority should have processed the request under the Environmental Information Regulations as the request was for Environmental information. However, he is satisfied that the exception in 12(4)(a) applies because the requested information is not held by it for the purposes of the Regulations. He has found procedural breaches of Regulations 14(3)(a), 14(5)(a) and 14(5)(b) but requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 9 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 10 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50260693
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.532390

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council relating to the issue of redundant school land not meeting expectations in the current financial crisis. The Council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it considered it to be vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, the Information Commissioner found that some of the information requested would, if held, be environmental information and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations. Upon investigation the Commissioner concluded that the Council had provided sufficient evidence for section 14(1) of the Act to be engaged and that it was not obliged to comply with the request as it was manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b). However, the Commissioner also found that the Council breached section 10(1) and section 17(5) of the Act for not responsing within the statutory time limit and that by failing to deal with the request under the EIR the Council also breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3) but the Commissioner is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50232537
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.532360

Torfaen County Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 26 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of two recordings made from her late mother’s telephone line on two specified dates. The Council refused the information in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Torfaen County Borough Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50598114
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564755

University of Manchester (Education (University)): ICO 20 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from the university relating to staff in the Department of Physics from 1975 to date. To the date of this notice, the university has not responded. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the university to issue a full response under the FOIA to the complainant’s request of 27 January 2016.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50621647
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564756

Rainworth Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 20 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested detailed financial information from Rainworth Parish Council (the parish council). The Commissioner’s decision is that while the parish council acknowledged the complainant’s request and provided some relevant information, it has not issued a response which fulfils its obligations under the terms of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the parish council to issue a fresh response to the complainant, with respect to the outstanding parts of the request, which does not rely on section 21 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 21: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50607378
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564752

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 10 May 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information which had been retained from a number of different files when the files had been transferred to The National Archives. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information relying on the exemptions contained at sections 23 (security bodies), 24 (national security), 26 (defence), 27 (international relations) and 40 (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50597929
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564759

St Patrick’s and St Brigid’s College (Education (College)): ICO 26 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from St Patrick’s and St Brigid’s College (‘the College’) in relation to suspension of pupils from the College during the academic years 2014/2015 and 2015 to date. The College has not to date provided a response to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the College provide a full response to the complainant’s request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50616216
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564754

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 27 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to Home Office vehicles. The Home Office disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder and cited the exemption provided by section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 31(1)(a) correctly, so it was not obliged to disclose the withheld information.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614428
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564738

Merseytravel (Education (Other)): ICO 20 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to Liverpool tunnel tolls. Merseytravel refused the request, citing the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseytravel: was the appropriate public authority to handle the request, that it correctly handled the request under the FOIA and complied with section 1 of the FOIA; that it failed to demonstrate that the exemptions in section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) were engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the requested information to the complainant, excluding the names and contact details of junior members of staff.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 36: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608471
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564746

City of York Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 20 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information which relates to the lease of two offices to Conserve Africa Foundation, which are subject to a dispute and possible recovery action in respect of council tax. Where City of York Council holds recorded information which falls within the scope of the complainant’s request, the Commissioner has decided that the Council is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA to withhold it. Where the Council says that it does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request, the Commissioner has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA, in advising the complainant of this position. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601860
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564731

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 21 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about the documentation required by transgender people when applying for a UK passport. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50619428
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564740

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 28 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested the number of payments made by the Home Office of more than andpound;25,000 that were not included in the information published by the Home Office about such payments, and the amount of each of those payments. The Home Office refused this request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 12(1) incorrectly and it is now required to issue a fresh response to the request.
FOI 12: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50607008
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564737

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50623990: ICO 21 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about council tax liability hearings. By the date of this notice, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5 under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50623990
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564747

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 18 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the contents of four named Home Office (HO) files on 13 August 2015. HO provided an initial holding reply, citing the section 24(1) FOIA exemption but, despite reminders from both the complainant and the Commissioner, has still not provided a full reply including a public interest balancing test. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that HO has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires HO respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50616206
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564739

North Yorkshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 19 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a train accident that occurred at Selby on 28 February 2001. North Yorkshire Police (NYP) responded and said that determining whether this information was held would exceed the cost limit (section 12(2)) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NYP was aware without undertaking significant work that it held information within the scope of the request and so was incorrect to rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also found that NYP breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires NYP to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA.
FOI 12: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50589979
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564749

City College, Brighton and Hove (Education (College)): ICO 20 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant made a number of requests for information relating to an intended redevelopment of City College’s campus in Brighton. The college refused the requests partly on cost grounds under s12(1) FOIA and partly as vexatious under s14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that s12(1) applies to the whole of the information requested and so the college is not obliged to comply with the requests.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50603999
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564730

Financial Conduct Authority (Local Government (Other)): ICO 18 Apr 2016

The complainant has requested information on software licences purchased by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The FCA provided information for parts of the request but considered that the discount on the normal list price for the licence agreement was exempt on the basis of section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied the provisions of section 43(2) and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50607121
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564735

BBC (Other): ICO 30 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the September 2013 BBC One Panorama programme Saving Syria’s Children (SSC) and related BBC News reports. The BBC explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall within the scope of FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50617034
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564722

Bridgnorth Town Council (Local Government (Town Council)): ICO 28 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information with regards to the ownership of certain traffic islands. Bridgnorth Town Council (the council) stated that it did not hold any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The only information that was provided was actually held by another council and had already been obtained by the requestor from that council. As the Commissioner has determined no other information is held, and the complainant already holds a copy of the expired agreement, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50610710
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564728

Cabinet Office (Central Government ): ICO 25 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for correspondence or communications exchanged with representatives of either Lambeth Palace or Westminster Abbey concerning the funeral of Her Majesty The Queen or the Coronation of the next Monarch. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime); 35(1)(a) (government policy); 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign); 38(1)(b) (endangering the safety of an individual); 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 35: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50600524
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564729

Ashford Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 28 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information in relation to the Chief Executive of Ashford Futures. Ashford Borough Council (the council) advised that it did not hold this information and at the internal review stage advised that this person had in fact resigned. The complainant considered the council held information on a dismissal, but during the Commissioner’s investigation, the council provided a copy of the individual’s resignation letter. On the production of this resignation letter, the Commissioner determined that the council would not hold information on a dismissal. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50603697
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564727

Cambridgeshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 30 Mar 2016

The complainant has requested information relating to a street lighting contract. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire County Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) where disclosure would have an adverse effect upon the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0597905
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564723

Halton Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 30 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant has made a request to Halton Borough Council (‘the council’) for information about Parental Assessments. The council responded that no relevant information was held. The Commissioner finds that no relevant information is likely to be held, and that the council has complied with the requirements of section 16(1) and section 10(1). He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601201
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564724

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice ): ICO 4 Aug 2016

The complainant has requested figures connected to monthly numbers of arrests of people suspected of helping to support or plot with the Islamic State over the last two years. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that this has been properly relied on and no steps are required.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50611773
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.568500

Birmingham Crosscity Clinical Commissioning Group (Health (Nhs)): ICO 4 Aug 2016

The complainant made a request to the CCG for its recruitment and selection policy and information relating to the ethnic breakdown and qualifications of staff on the Quality and Safety Team broken down by job grade and job role/title. The complainant also asked for an ethnic breakdown and qualification information of shortlisted candidates for a role on that team. The CCG provided all of the requested information but refused to provide the job role/title of staff on the Quality and Safety team as it did provide the ethnic breakdown, qualification information and job grade of staff on that team. It considers that the job role/title information alongside the information it did provide was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50618855
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.568493

Crown Prosecution Service (Police and Criminal Justice ): ICO 4 Aug 2016

The complainant has requested information regarding a charging decision in relation to an allegation of murder. The Crown Prosecution Service withheld the information under sections 30(1)(c) (criminal proceedings) and section 40(2) (third party personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608754
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.568503

Smith and Aberdeenshire Council: SIC 20 Apr 2016

SIC Risk Assessment: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescale – On 6 January 2016, Mr Smith asked Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) for a risk assessment carried out by the Council, prior to a store container and a site office being placed within Portlethen Primary School’s grounds by a contractor. This decision finds that the Council failed to comply with Mr Smith’s requirement for review within the timescales set down by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2016] ScotIC 088 – 2016
Bailii
Information (Scotland) Act 2002
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564208

Mcfadden and East Dunbartonshire Council (Asbestos Reports): SIC 26 Apr 2016

Asbestos Reports – On 22 January 2015, Mr McFadden asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for information relating to asbestos at his home address, and also asbestos test sample results for all vacant properties over the preceding year.
The Council provided some information, while stating that other information was excepted from disclosure under the EIRs as internal communications. Following investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had partially failed to respond to Mr McFadden’s request for information in accordance the EIRs, by withholding some of the information requested by Mr McFadden.

[2016] ScotIC 089 – 2016
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564209

Arts Council England (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Nov 2009

The complainant requested five categories of information in order to obtain evidence that would assist him in his ongoing complaint. The public authority responded that it believed that the request was vexatious and that section 14 applied and it upheld its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has considered this case and believes that one element constituted the complainant’s personal data and should have been considered separately under the Data Protection Act. In relation to the other elements, he has considered the application of section 14(1) and finds that it was applied correctly in this case. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0105 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50251368
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.532266

Wycliffe Hall (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to the relationship between Wycliffe Hall (Wycliffe), a theological college within the University of Oxford, and the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics (OCCA). Wycliffe agreed to the disclosure of the requested information with the exception of a limited amount contained in a partnership agreement. This was withheld under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wycliffe incorrectly applied section 43(2) of FOIA. He therefore requires it to disclose a complete copy of the partnership agreement to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50444549
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.529874

Drayton Manor High School (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information about the name of the source of a questionnaire that had been used by the public authority. The public authority refused to disclose this information relying on section 40 of the Act. Having clarified with the complainant the scope of the request, the Commissioner has found that the public authority did not hold any recorded information at the time of the request. The public authority has therefore breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act in wrongly confirming that it held information. The Commissioner also believes that the public authority breached section 16(1) as it failed to ask for clarification when there was more than one objective meaning to the request. The public authority also failed to meet the requirements of section 17(1)(b) in failing to cite fully an exemption that it relied upon. It also failed to meet the requirements of section 17(7)(a) and (b) by failing to provide details of its appeal procedures and the right to complain to the Commissioner in its refusal notice. However, as the Commissioner has found that the public authority did not hold the requested information he requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50188743
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.532314

Barnet London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to parking permits and suspensions issued by the London Borough of Barnet (the council). The council did not respond until 52 working days after the request was received. The complainant asked the Commissioner to issue a decision notice to record the delay. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA, but as a response has been provided, no further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50456625
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.529877

Willow v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice (Information Rights : Freedom of Information – Public Interest Test): UTAA 24 Mar 2016

Request for disclosure of an unredacted version of the Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint training manual (‘MMPR’) which sets out the techniques of physical restraint used in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and Secure Training Centres (STCs).

[2016] UKUT 157 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.563365

Prince Albert v Strange: ChD 8 Feb 1849

The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
Held: The jurisdiction in confidence is based not so much on property or on contract as on a duty of good faith. In granting an injunction restraining the publication of the catalogue containing descriptions of etchings, the court said it was ‘an intrusion – an unbecoming and unseemly intrusion . . offensive to that inbred sense of propriety natural to every man – if, intrusion, indeed, fitly describes a sordid spying into the privacy of domestic life – into the home (a word hitherto sacred among us).’ The plaintiff’s affidavits: ‘state distinctly the belief of the Plaintiff, that the catalogue and the descriptive and other remarks therein contained, could not have been compiled or made, except by means of the possession of the several impressions of the said etchings surreptitiously and improperly obtained. To this case no answer is made . . If then, these compositions were kept private, except as to some . . sent to [B] for the purposes of having certain impressions taken, the possession of the Defendant . . must have originated in a breach of trust, confidence, or contract, in [B] or some person in his employ taking more impressions than were ordered, and retaining the extra number.’ Lord Cottenham LC said: ‘privacy is the right invaded.’

Vice-Chancellor Knight-Bruce, Lord Cottenham LC
(1849) 1 H and Tw 1, 2 De G and SM 293, (1849) 1 Mac and G 25, [1849] EWHC Ch J20, [1849] EngR 255, (1849) 41 ER 1171, [1849] EngR 261, (1849) 47 ER 1302, (1849) 2 De Gex and Sim 652
Bailii, Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAnn Paxton Gee v William Pritchard And William Anderson 17-Jul-1818
The Lord Chancellor repudiated an argument that the publication of letters should be restrained, because their publication would be painful to the feelings of the Plaintiff; and said, ‘The question will be, whether the bill has stated facts of which . .
CitedWilkins v Aikin 4-Aug-1810
The defendant was said to have copied works of the plaintiff. The court considered the defence of fair use. . .
CitedSpottiswoode v Clark 11-Dec-1846
A plaintiff seeking an injunction to restrain publication of documents must first demonstrate a title in them. . .
CitedRigby And Another v The Great Western Railway Company 1-Dec-1845
. .
CitedAbernethy v Hutchinson 17-Jun-1825
An application was made to restrain the Defendants from publishing, in ‘The Lancet,’ Mr Abernethy’s Lectures, which had been delivered extemporally. Lord Eldon, at first, refused the application; but afterward granted an injunction, in the ground . .
CitedSaunders And Benning v Smith And Maxwell 22-Jun-1838
. .
CitedGyles v Wilcox, Nutt and Barrow 6-Mar-1740
Copyright Purposes claim limited
The plaintiff bookmaker was publisher of Matthew Hale’s Pleas of the Crown. The first and second defendants hired the third to abridge it and they began to published the result as Modern Crown Law. The plaintiff sought to restrain further . .
CitedMacklin v Richardson 5-Dec-1770
A short-hand writer took down the words from the mouths of the actors on the stage playing the farce of ‘Love a la Mode’, and the Defendant afterward published them, and an injunction was granted to restrain him, on the ground that the author had . .
CitedCarr v Hood QBD 1808
Lord Ellenborough said: ‘it is not libellous to ridicule a literary composition, or the author of it, in so far as he has embodied himself with his work.
Every man who publishes a book commits himself to the judgment of the public, and anyone . .
CitedClarke v Tipping 18-Apr-1846
The Defendant had bribed the Plaintiff’s agent to make extracts of false entries from the books of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not move for an injunction on the Defendant’s answer; but, on the cause coming on for hearing, it appeared that . .
CitedMurray v Elliston 3-May-1822
The defendant represented Lord Byron’s tragedy of ‘Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice,’ on the stage, with some alterations from the printed tragedy.
Held: The manager of a theatre having publicly represented for profit a tragedy, altered and . .
CitedGreen v Folgham 10-Jun-1823
. .
CitedAldred’s Case 1619
An action would lie where a pig-stye was erected so close to the plaintiff’s house as to corrupt the air in the house, and also and similarly for a lime-kiln with smoke, or where filth from a dye house runs into a fish pond. Where the plaintiff . .
CitedPope v Curl 17-Jun-1741
The defendant, on his answer being put in, moved to dissolve an injunction against his vending a book of letters from Swift, Pope,and others.
Held: A collection of letters as well as other books, is within the intention of the 8th of Queen . .
CitedBridgeman v Green 1757
The question before the court was whether certain money, which had been obtained by fraud, ought to be returned to the Plaintiff by a party who had received it, but who was not a party to the fraud. Lord Commissioner Wilmot said, ‘Whoever receives . .
CitedDuke of Queensberry v Shebbeare 31-Jul-1758
The court considered the grant of an injunction to restrain publication of a manuscript of Lord Clarendon’s ‘History of the Reign of Charles the Second’ delivered to the defendant, but not for publication.
Held: The injunction was granted. . .
CitedMillar v Taylor 20-Apr-1769
Yates J said: ‘It is certain every man has a right to keep his own sentiments if he pleases. He has certainly a right to judge whether he will make them public, or commit them only to the sight of his friends. In that state the manuscript is, in . .
CitedDonaldson v Beckett HL 22-Feb-1774
Copyright Must Be Limited in Time
The booksellers’ statutory copyright rights had expired. They requested the court to recognise a continuing right akin to copyright under common law.
Held: Following Hinton -v- Donaldson, the Lords dissolved an injunction against Alexander . .
CitedSir Charles Thompson And Others, Executors of Lord Chesterfield v Eugenia Stanhope, Widow, And John Dodsley 23-Mar-1774
Lord Apsley granted an injunction, on the application of Lord Chesterfield’s executor, to restrain the widow of his son from publishing letters which the son had received from Lord Chesterfield. . .
CitedLord And Lady Perceval v Phipps 3-Jun-1813
Copyright in private letters remained even after transmission and an injunction could be granted to prevent further repubication. However here where the defendant was relying upon the letters to disprove false allegations made against him, that . .
CitedEarl Cholmondeley v Lord Clinton 3-Feb-1815
An Attorney or solicitor cannot give up his client, and act for the opposite party, in any suit between them. . .
CitedSouthey v Sherwood And Others 18-Mar-1817
Lord Eldon refused an injunction to restrain the publication of Wat Tyler, because he held the work itself to be of an injurious tendency; but he maintained the principle, that, if the work had been innocent in its character, the author would have . .

Cited by:
CitedDouglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 11-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .
CitedBritish Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
CitedCampbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
CitedCoco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
CitedDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
CitedMurray v Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD 7-Aug-2007
The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
Held: The . .
CitedTchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
ApprovedLamb v Evans CA 1893
The plaintiff printed and published a multi-lingual European trade directory, engaging the defendants as commission agents to solicit paid entries for the directory. The businessmen could, if they wished, supply wood blocks or other materials from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information

Leading Case

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.181403

City of Westminster Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Nov 2009

The complainant made a request for information to the City of Westminster on 19 January 2008 for a copy of all correspondence and documentation regarding the commissioning, production and issuing of a fire risk assessment report. The Council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it considered it to be vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence for section 14(1) of the Act to be engaged. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached section 17(5) of the Act for not issuing the refusal notice within the statutory time limit. The Council is required to confirm or deny to the complainant if the information requested is held and either disclose this information to the complainant or provide him with a valid refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50199130
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.532303

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant, on 9 September 2005, requested from the Planning Service, an executive agency within the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland), a copy of an enforcement officer’s report. The Department confirmed that prior to the request it had, in error, destroyed the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is not held by the Department as the information was destroyed by the Department in error. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not require the Department to take any steps in relation to this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50177447
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.532414

Arts Council England (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Nov 2009

The complainant submitted a number of requests to Arts Council England (ACE) about its decision to disinvest in a particular publishing company. ACE provided some information in response to the first request but withheld further documents on the basis of section 36 of the Act (effective conduct of public affairs). Further requests were refused on the basis that the aggregated cost of fulfilling them would exceed the cost limit. The complainant argued that both section 36 and section 12 had been incorrectly relied upon and furthermore argued that more information fell within the scope of his initial request and such information had not been disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded that no further information falls within the scope of the request other than that located during the course of his investigation. The Commissioner has also concluded that ACE was correct to refuse the further requests on the basis that the aggregated cost of fulfilling them would have exceeded the cost limit. Finally, with the exception of one document which the Commissioner has ordered ACE to disclose, he has concluded that section 36 has been correctly relied upon. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0001 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50191595
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.532265

Independent Police Complaints Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Nov 2009

In September 2007, the complainant requested a copy of the previous year’s report of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners relating to the public authority. It refused to provide this citing provisions of section 31 (Law enforcement exemption) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position after an internal review. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority had applied the provisions of section 31 incorrectly to some of the information. The Commissioner has also concluded that the public authority cannot rely on section 40(2) as a basis for withholding some of the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to provide some extracts of the requested report. He also finds that the public authority contravened some of the procedural requirements of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50182444
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.532337

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) about details concerning complaints provided to the FSA in 2006 and 2007 by the top 125 most complained about companies. The FSA refused to disclose the requested information by virtue of the exemption in section 44 of the Act, prohibitions on disclosure. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the requested information would be exempt by virtue of section 44(1)(a) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50212106
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.532321

Department for Communities and Local Government (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2009

The complainant wrote to the Department for Communities and Local Government to request copies of submissions made by departmental officials to the Secretary of State in respect of a planning application by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club. In response the public authority disclosed to the complainant redacted copies of the submissions. The redacted information was withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). At the internal review stage the public authority said that regulation 12(5) (prejudice to the course of justice etc.) also applied to some of the redacted information. The Commissioner has investigated the public authority’s handling of the request and has found that, with two minor exceptions, the information was correctly withheld under regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(4)(e). In addition the Commissioner has found that the names of officials featured in the submissions are covered by the exception in regulation 13 (personal information). However, the Commissioner also found that in its handling of the request the public authority committed several procedural breaches of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide to the complainant the two redacted pieces of information which the public authority now acknowledges should have been disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0186717
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.532305

Verderers of The New Forest (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

The complainant requested the Verderers of the New Forest to release a schedule of the individual payments made to elected verderers participating in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and a copy of legal advice it obtained from its lawyer concerning this activity and its compliance with the New Forest Act 1877. The Verderers considered the request and refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 40 and 42 of the Act. The complainant remained dissatisfied and approached the Commissioner. After considering the case and the information being withheld, the Commissioner decided that the requested information was environmental information and therefore the complainant’s request should have been dealt with under the EIR. The Verderers reconsidered the request under the EIR and claimed that exception 12(5)(b) and regulation 13 applied to the requested information. The Commissioner considered the arguments presented by both parties. In respect of the legal advice requested, the Commissioner concluded that the Verderers were correct to rely on exception 12(5)(b) and that the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. However, in respect of the individual payments made to elected verderers, the Commissioner concluded that there would be no unfairness to those verderers if the information was released and that disclosure would not contravene the Data Protection Act. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Verderers to release this information to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2008/0014) has been withdrawn.
EIR 12.5.b: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FER0148337
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.532565

Lincolnshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

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

[2008] UKICO FS50155400
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.532543