Bristol City Council (Local Government): ICO 30 Nov 2021

The complainant has requested information associated with Kingsdown Sports Centre from Bristol City Council (‘the Council’). At the date of this notice, the Council has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not provided a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 14 September 2021 that complies with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-139242

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675054

Oak Grove Integrated College (Education): ICO 18 Oct 2022

The complainant requested copies of agendas and minutes of the Board of Governors Committee and sub-committee meetings. The majority of the information has now been provided to the complainant, the College has redacted some names from the copies provided. The Commissioner agrees that exemption under section 40(2) of FOIA is appropriately engaged with regard to the redacted information. However, the College failed to respond to the initial request within the statutory timeframe and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 151108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683088

London Borough of Lambeth (Local Government): ICO 12 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information about a roofing contractor from the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council). The Council initially refused the request stating that the information was not held, however, during the course of the investigation the Council revised their position and refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b). The Council has now provided the complainant with a fresh response reflecting its change in position and offering advice and assistance to the complainant on how they may refine their request, thereby meeting its duties at regulation 9(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 9(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 117271

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683040

Lyde, On Behalf and co v The Eastern Bengal Railway Company: 15 Apr 1866

A company established for one purpose cannot, against the will of any dissentient minority (however small) undertake a business foreign to its original object. Thus a railway company cannot become a steam-boat company or carry on a brewery.

Citations:

[1866] EngR 132, (1866) 36 Beav 10, (1866) 55 ER 1059

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.280843

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Local Government): ICO 9 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (‘the Council’) relating to a controlled parking zone. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take this step 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: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-132071

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675108

Crescent Oil and Shipping Services Ltd v Banco Nacional de Angola and Others: ComC 28 May 1999

Whether company validly constituted – whether those persons who purported to act on behalf of the company authorised to do so – whether valid service within the jurisdiction- whether garnishee orders nisi should be set aside – sovereign immunity – the position of general banks – abuse of the process -forgery of documents.

Judges:

Cresswell J

Citations:

Unreported, 28 May 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Banking, International

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.225412

London Borough of Enfield (Local Government): ICO 20 Oct 2022

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Enfield (‘the Council’) about resident responses to a traffic scheme consultation survey. The Council disclosed some of the information requested but refused to provide the postcodes citing the personal information exception under regulation 13(1) of the EIR (personal information). The Council also stated that it did not hold the paper copies of the surveys. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the postcodes under regulation 13 of EIR and that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the paper copies of the surveys. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
EIR 13: Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 176652

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683035

Pensions Ombudsman (Central Government): ICO 11 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information relating to the Pensions Ombudsman’s ‘cost’ criterion for investigative decisions, the number of cases delayed, Parliamentary Ombudsman interventions regarding delays (by year), NAVIGO case activity with dates for mitigation of delays, why enquiries may not be responded to under FOIA or GDPR legislation, ‘NAVIGO’ GDPR logic adopted to process ‘data’ and information relating to ‘automated’ decision making. The Pensions Ombudsman provided information in response to the request or explained why it would not hold information relevant to the request under section 1(1) FOIA. The complainant submitted a complaint to the Commissioner as he was dissatisfied with the Pensions Ombudsman’s response regarding the ‘cost’ element of the request. The Commissioner therefore focussed his investigation to determine whether the Pensions Ombudsman had complied with the ‘cost’ element of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the Pensions Ombudsman does not hold a specific cost criterion under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Pensions Ombudsman to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 159593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683092

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Central Government): ICO 30 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from what was then known as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, now referred to as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [‘the Ministry’] relating to the ‘standard method of assessing housing need’ first proposed in the ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals’ of September 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’), within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Ministry to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Ministry 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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 11: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-139362

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675072

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 4 Mar 2022

1. The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to the Home Offices recruitment for a vacant post, specifically the personal statements of the four candidates shortlisted for interview. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. 3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-121943

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.674957

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50585009: ICO 13 Jul 2015

The complainant requested a contact telephone number for a specific part of the Cabinet Office, along with text messages sent by the Prime Minister to two MPs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has breached sections 1 and 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because it has not issued a response to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the public authority issue a substantive response to the complainant under the Act. 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50585009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.555560

Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 29 Oct 2021

The complainant requested from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) information relating to the cost of installing a rainbow pavement. By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Trust must take this step 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: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-132225

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675024

R+V Versicherung Ag v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions Sa and others: ComC 18 Nov 2005

Judges:

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2586 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA, Reass France SARL, Reass SARL, Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions Ltd ComC 18-Nov-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.235484

London Borough of Hackney (Local Government): ICO 21 Oct 2022

The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 193777

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683036

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 30 Nov 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to a variant of covid-19. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, in accordance with the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-105981

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675076

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 19 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to minutes of the Joint Biosecurity Centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) – formulation or development of government policy to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 35: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-65392

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675003

Steyning Parish Council (Local Government): ICO 19 Oct 2022

The complainant requested information from Steyning Parish Council (‘SPC’) relating to public liability insurance in respect of health and safety issues at specified SPC public areas. SPC refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not a vexatious request. The Commissioner requires SPC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
FOI 14(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 155299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683118

Hemingbrough Parish Council (Local Government): ICO 25 Nov 2021

The complainant has requested information about maintenance work carried out in a particular area. Hemingbrough Parish Council had failed to issue a substantive response at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-136504

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675095

West London NHS Trust (Health): ICO 25 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information about a review of an investigation. West London NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) has applied section 30(3) (investigations and proceedings), section 40(2) (personal data) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: If the Trust holds any information within scope of the request it would be the complainant’s own personal data which would be exempt information under section 40(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has therefore applied section 40(5A) of the FOIA herself proactively to prevent the disclosure of personal data that would result from confirming or denying that information was held. The Trust breached section 17(1) of the FOIA as its refusal notice was inadequate. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-92713

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675045

Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin: ComC 22 Oct 2003

Judges:

Mr Justice Tomlinson

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2419 (Comm), [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 159, [2004] ILPr 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 21-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) CA 1984
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was . .

Cited by:

See Also – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 21-Nov-2001
. .
Appeal from – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin CA 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages from what were said to be speculative trades carried out by the defendant whilst working in Russia. The claims were in both equity and in tort. He was a director of the company which was incorporated in Guernsey.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.189168

University of London (Education): ICO 25 Feb 2022

The complainant has requested the marks achieved by students on Masters of Law (LLM) modules for 2017-2021. The University of London (‘the University’) disclosed the award classifications for each year but withheld the remainder of the information that fell within the scope of the request, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) does not apply to all of the information that the University is withholding. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the information requested in part 3 of the request. Furthermore, in failing to disclose all non-exempt information within twenty working days, the University has breached section 10 (time for compliance with request) of FOIA.
FOI 43(2): Complaint partly upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-119019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.674932

Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International Ag and Another: ComC 27 Jul 2001

When asking whether the time for appeal against an arbitrator’s award should be extended, the court should look at several circumstances, including the length of the delay; whether the party was acting reasonably in all the circumstances in delaying; whether the other party had contributed to the delay; whether other party would suffer irremediable prejudice from the delay over and above mere loss of time if the application proceeded; whether the arbitration had continued during the period of delay what impact on progress or costs might arise from the extension; the strength of the application; and whether it would be unfair to deny the applicant opportunity to have the application determined.
The court considered its practice in supervising arbitrations where one or more of the parties were foreign.
Important issues as to the appropriate policy of this court in relation to the operation of the Arbitration Act 1996 where foreign parties are involved.

Judges:

Mr Justice Colman

Citations:

Times 20-Nov-2001, [2001] EWHC 464 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 67 68 69, Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.331179

Birstall Parish Council (Local Government) ic-65833: ICO 23 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from Birstall Parish Council, Leicestershire (‘the Parish Council’) about the local BMX bike track. The Parish Council provided some information and explanations, and links to documents that were published online. After reconsidering the request under the EIR, at the request of the Commissioner, the Parish Council provided some further information and links, but stated that no information was held in respect of certain parts of the request; it also considered that another part of the request was expressed in too general a manner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council holds no information in relation to the relevant parts of the request. However, it did not inform the complainant that it decided that one part of his request was expressed in too general a manner, within 20 working days, nor subsequently offer him any advice and assistance in respect of this; the Parish Council therefore breached regulation 9(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Contact the complainant and ask him to provide more particulars in respect of the correspondence being requested, and offer assistance in how he might provide the further particulars.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 9(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-65833

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675052

Birstall Parish Council (Local Government) ic-61545: ICO 23 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from Birstall Parish Council, Leicestershire (‘the Parish Council’) about trees. The Parish Council provided some information, but stated that it did not hold any information about actions taken or work done. It also withheld information relating to a lease, under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice – and/or regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material in the course of completion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council does not hold the information about actions taken and work done, and correctly withheld the information relating to a lease under regulation 12(5)(b). However, by failing to provide a response under the EIR within 20 working days, it breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take any steps.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-61545

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675051