Hunt v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: Admn 22 May 2020

Decision on the issue of costs following the withdrawal of the claimant’s application for judicial review on agreed terms. The issue arises in unusual if not unique circumstances. The question is whether the claimant is entitled, as part of her costs of the judicial review proceedings, to recover the costs of intervening in unconnected proceedings in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1292 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.651051

Wright v Ver: CA 29 May 2020

Issues about the proper interpretation and effect of section 9 of the 2013 Act. Section 9(2) provides that ‘A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement’. By a judgment dated 31 July 2019 Mr Justice Nicklin (‘the judge’) found that England and Wales was not clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring the libel claim in this action and made a declaration that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Judges:

Lord Justice Dingemans

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 672

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 2013 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.651062

Avon Ground Rents Ltd v Cowley and Others: CA 29 Oct 2019

The landlord of a mixed commercial and private housing property, intending to carry out needed repairs, requested advance payment from the tenants to cover the costs. The tenants objected that a large part of the costs would be covered in due course by a third party under a constructor’s warranty.
Held: The landlord’s appeal failed. Whether any sum was reasonably requested from a lessee in advance under section 19(2) of the 1985 Act was not decided by applying any set of rigid rules but was to be assessed in the light of the facts of the particular case.

Judges:

McCombe, Coulson, Nicola Davies LJJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1827, [2019] WLR(D) 594, [2020] 1 WLR 1337, [2020] L and TR 2, [2020] HLR 6

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.651065

Charlene Hughes v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty – Appeal v Assessment In Respect of Duty Unpaid Cigarettes): FTTTx 3 Nov 2022

EXCISE DUTY – Appeal against assessment in respect of duty unpaid cigarettes – Whether Appellant is the holder of the cigarettes liable to pay the excise duty – Whether earlier duty point could be established

Citations:

[2022] UKFTT 400 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.682699

Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam and Another (Harassment – Conduct): EAT 22 Nov 2019

The Claimant in the Employment Tribunal was present when a colleague made a remark which included a reference to ISIS. She complained that this amounted to harassment by way of conduct related to race, identified by her for this purpose as her own race of being British Asian Indian. The Tribunal upheld the complaint and the First Respondent (the employer) appealed.
Held: The Tribunal erred because:
(1) It did not make a clear and distinct finding that the conduct related to race, as opposed to addressing the other elements of the definition of harassment;
(2) If it did consider that the conduct related to race, it appeared to have done so on the basis of its view that the ‘perception of ISIS in the minds of a significant proportion of the general public is that it is an international organisation connected with Asian people, in particular, those in such areas as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran’. But, if so:
(a) That was not a proper finding, because there was no evidence before the Tribunal to support it. It was not a matter of which it could take judicial notice;
(b) In any event the Tribunal had to decide for itself whether the conduct, and, in this case specifically the making of a reference to ISIS, related to race, as opposed to relying on what it took to be the public perception; and
(c) In any event it was unfair to the First Respondent to reply upon this proposition, because it had not been put forward, or canvassed, by either the Claimant or the Tribunal during the course of the hearing.
(3) The Appeal would therefore be allowed, and the decision upholding this complaint, and the associated award, quashed. On the evidence before the Tribunal, and the facts as found, the Tribunal, correctly applying the law, could not have properly concluded that this was conduct related to race, as alleged. The matter would therefore not be remitted.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0039 – 19 – 2211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.650906

BDW Trading Ltd v Kopec: EAT 13 Dec 2019

HARRASSMENT – Conduct
The tribunal erred in law in deciding that the respondent could be liable for harassment of the claimant by the third parties, which the respondent had not taken seriously and had failed to prevent and failed properly to address, without any finding that the respondent’s officers themselves had any discriminatory motivation.
The matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for further consideration.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0197 – 19 – 1312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.650909

Heal v University of Oxford and Others (Practice and Procedure): EAT 16 Jul 2019

The Claimant indicated that he had a disability in his ET1 and requested some adjustments including permission to use a recording device as his condition made it difficult for him to take contemporaneous notes. The Tribunal indicated that an application for permission should be made at the preliminary hearing although it was also stated that the application would be considered before the hearing if the requisite information was provided. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that he should not have to make an application, that the Tribunal erred in failing to consider the matter before the preliminary hearing and in failing to consider that the Claimant would be in contempt of court if he attempted to bring a recording device into the building before permission was granted.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal was entitled to deal with the application at a hearing rather than on the papers. There was no error of law in not considering the matter in advance of the hearing although the Tribunal had not precluded that course in any event. Finally, the Tribunal’s direction that the application to record be considered at a hearing implicitly gave permission to bring the equipment to court pending leave to record being given. In any event, there is unlikely to be a contempt of court within the meaning of s. 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 where a person brings a device, e.g. a mobile phone, to court for a purpose other than to use it to record sound or subject to the Tribunal’s permission to do so.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0070 – 19 – 1607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.650887

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50501793: ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding the basis upon which remaining papers concerning the case of the – ‘Shrewsbury 24’ were retained by the Cabinet Office rather than transferred to The National Archives. The MoJ provided the complainant with the majority of information requested but withheld some material on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies); section 35(1)(a) (government policy); section 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications); section 38(1)(b) (health and safety); section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 40(2) (personal data). The complainant disputed the application of all of the exemptions with the exception of sections 23(1) and 40(2). The Commissioner has concluded that the section 42(1) has been correctly applied and the public interest favours maintaining that exemption. However, although he has found that section 35(1)(a) is engaged, he has concluded that the public interest favours disclosing the information withheld under this exemption. The Commissioner has also concluded that sections 35(1)(b) and 38(1)(b) are not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with the information previously withheld on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b). Provide the complainant with the information previously withheld on the basis of section 38(1)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50501793

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528904

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50507134: ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant requested information recording a review of the credibility of the legal aid system carried out at the behest of the Justice Secretary. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) was cited correctly and so it was not required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50507134

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528905

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information about drugs tests carried out on members of the Household Cavalry Regiment and the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment. The Ministry of Defence (MoD?) made a partial disclosure but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (Unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD is entitled to rely on section 40(2) in the circumstances of this case. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50507241

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528902

Legal Ombudsman (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information from the Legal Ombudsman about the number of cases in which the Ombudsman agreed with the recommendation of its investigator and the number it disagreed. The Legal Ombudsman applied section 12 to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Legal Ombudsman has correctly applied section 12 to the complainant’s request and he does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50510686

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528893

London School of Economics and Political Science (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information about an MSc research project: the names of the student and supervisor, details of the project and a copy of the published paper. The London School of Economics (LSE) refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. Following an internal review, the LSE also cited section 40(3) (contravenes any of the data protection principles or likely to cause damage or distress) and the condition in section 40(4) (exempt from subject access right). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt under section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50506169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528895

Marine Management Organisation (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Nov 2013

The complainant made a request to the Marine Management Organisation for the scrutiny of the European Commission (EC) of its data reporting systems, including copies of any relevant reports and responses to reports. The MMO applied regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) and 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) to documents it believed fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MMO has breached regulation 14(3)(a) of the EIR by not issuing a refusal notice stating that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request and citing the exception contained in regulation 12(4)(a) to the entirety of the request. The Commissioner does not require the MMO to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0513087

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528896

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested the complaints handling manual and standard phrases recommended for use by complaints handlers at Her Majesty’s Court Service. After a protracted delay, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ?) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 31(1)(c) (prejudice to the administration of justice), section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 40(2) (unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. It also initially relied on section 41 (information provided in confidence) but withdrew this argument during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to rely on the exemptions it has cited as a basis for withholding most of the requested information. However, it is not entitled to rely on any of the exemptions it has cited in relation to some of the withheld information listed in a Confidential Annex to this Notice. Also, in failing to provide an adequate response within 20 working days, the MoJ contravened the requirements of sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498837

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528903

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Nov 2013

The complainant requested copies of the marked pages in the A-Z map book located during the Robert Napper murder investigation. The Metropolitan Police Service (‘the MPS’) refused to provide the information by applying the exemption to disclosure in section 30(1) and section 40(2) and (3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS correctly applied the exemption at section 30(1) and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50503169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528898

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant complained that correspondence he had with the public authority was not a ‘new information request’ rather it was clarification of a previous request and that it should not have been dealt with as such. The Commissioner finds that the correspondence was correctly dealt with as a ‘new information request’. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50503531

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528901

Liverpool City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested a copy of the Liverpool Direct Limited (‘LDL’) procurement catalogue for goods and services purchased by Liverpool City Council (‘the council’) and the service contracts under taken by LDL for such goods and services. The council initially applied the exemptions at section 41 and 43 of the FOIA to the procurement catalogue and stated that it does not hold copies of the service contracts. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council provided a copy of the procurement catalogue but maintained it did not hold the service contracts. The complainant was not satisfied that the council had provided all information held within the scope of the request. The council has not responded appropriately to the Commissioner’s enquiries and therefore is not in a position to draw a conclusion in this case. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the complainant in respect of both the procurement catalogue and the service contracts between LDL and the council specifically in relation to the information the council holds rather than the information LDL holds.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498386

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528894

Monitor (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested communications between senior staff at Monitor with representatives of McKinsey and Co. and the Department of Health in relation to Regulations under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act. Monitor confirmed that some of the requested information was held, amounting to 4 documents, all of which were being withheld on the basis of section 36(2) and, in one case, section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Monitor has correctly withheld the correspondence it received from the DoH under section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) but the public interest in disclosure outweighs that in maintaining the exemptions in relation to the three – sector reports-?. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the three sector reports dated 15 January 2013, 15 February 2013 and 20 March 2013, with appropriate redactions for personal data under section 40(2) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50499289

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528906

Mid Sussex District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information from Mid Sussex District Council (the council) relating to what he has referred to as its ‘Lying Policy’. The council responded by advising that it does not have such a policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50492560

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528900

Marine Management Organisation (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant made a request to the Marine Management Organisation (- MMO-?) for details of its guidance in respect of travel and subsistence limits. The MMO supplied some information to the complainant. The complainant complained that it had not fully responded to her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that MMO breached sections 1 and 10 by not informing the complainant that it did not hold information in relation to part of her request and by not disclosing additional information in relation to other parts of her request within 20 working days of the request and by the time of the completion of the internal review. As the MMO disclosed to the complainant the additional information that it held that fell within the scope of her request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, he does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50494284

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528897

Taylor, Regina v: CACD 2 Aug 2022

Judges:

Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Lord Justice Holroyde) Mrs Justice May DBE Mr Justice Goose

Citations:

[2022] EWCA Crim 1207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.682825

Revenue and Customs v BZ: UTAA 30 Sep 2022

Child Benefit – backdating following decision on refugee status – whether three-month time limit for making backdated claim runs from receipt of Biometric Residence Permit or Home Office decision letter – effect of statement in Home Office decision letter that claim for benefits cannot be made prior to receipt of Biometric Residence Permit

Citations:

[2022] UKUT 264 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683379

Toya (Telecommunications – Power of The National Regulatory Authority To Impose Conditions – Opinion): ECJ 9 Jun 2022

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Telecommunications – Directive 2014/61/EU – Article 3 – Power of the national regulatory authority to impose conditions relating to access to physical infrastructure on an operator not having significant market power – Absence of a dispute relating to access – Article 1(3) – Minimum harmonisation

Citations:

C-243/21, [2022] EUECJ C-243/21_O, ECLI:EU:C:2022:455

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

(Opinion) – Toya (Telecommunications – Power of The National Regulatory Authority To Impose Conditions) ECJ 17-Nov-2022
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Article 6(3) – Assessment of a project likely to affect a protected site – Obligation to conduct an assessment – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683330

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 20 Oct 2021

The complainant requested information from The NHS Commissioning Board relating to the spend data above pounds 25,000 between 1 April 2020 and 28 February 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that The NHS Commissioning Board (‘NHS England’) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. NHS England 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-113081

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.675020

London Borough of Croydon (Local Government) ic-137554: ICO 18 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (‘the Council’) relating to a developments flood risk assessment and drainage proposals. 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 regulation 5(2) of the EIR 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 EIR. 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.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-137554

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.675112

Wales and West Utilities Ltd, Rex (on The Application of) v Competition and Markets Authority: Admn 21 Nov 2022

The claimant, Wales and West Utilities Ltd, seeks to challenge by way of judicial review certain aspects of a decision, and a consequential order, made by the defendant, the Competition and Markets Authority.

Judges:

Mr Justice Mostyn

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 2940 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683295

Health and Safety Executive (Other) ic-132799: ICO 7 Jun 2022

The complainant has requested information regarding a tunnel collapse. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive has failed to comply with its duties under section 1(1) of FOIA and, to the extent that the information may be environmental, Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request; If and to the extent that information is held, either: disclose that information or; issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA or; to the extent that the information is environmental, issue a refusal notice that complies with Regulation 14 of the EIR.
EIR 5(1): Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-132799

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.678892

Department of Health (NI) (Central Government): ICO 20 Oct 2021

The complainant requested information which the Department of Health had received from the Northern Ireland Covid-19 Strategic Intelligence Group on face coverings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Health (‘the DoH’) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DoH to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Issue a substantive response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the request. The DoH 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-129049

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.675007

Sheffield City Council (Local Government): ICO 20 Apr 2020

The complainant requested information relating to a noise abatement notice served by Sheffield City Council (the Council) on one of its residents. The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing Regulation 13(1) (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 13(1) was applied correctly. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
EIR 13(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fer0885458

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653573

The King v The Bishop of Durham, The Chancellor, Master And Scholars of Cambridge, Edward Fenwich, John Ward And Edward Fenwich Jun Clerk: 1792

A grant of a manor with all advowsons, and co. thereunto belonging, will not extend to an advowson severed in ancient times, though it was appendant to the manor 300 years ago.

Citations:

[1792] EngR 2570, (1792) 1 Com 361, (1792) 92 ER 1112

Links:

Commonlii

Land

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.360782

Wycombe District Council (Local Government): ICO 4 May 2020

The complainant requested from Wycombe District Council (the Council), which has since been replaced by the new Buckinghamshire Council, information relating to the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) award regarding Princes Risborough. The Council refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fer0893274

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653607

Staffordshire University (Education): ICO 28 Oct 2021

The complainant requested the names of external examiners and an evaluation report associated with particular courses of study. The Board of Governors of Staffordshire University relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the names of the external examiners and sections 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA to withhold the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the report engages section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Whilst she accepts that the identities of external examiners are their personal data, she considers that there is a lawful basis for processing this data and therefore the University is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the list of external examiners.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-93910

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.675039

Manchester City Council (Local Government): ICO 26 May 2020

The complainant has requested information about the ‘Empowering mothers against radicalisation’ project funded by Manchester City Council. The Council provided some information but refused the remainder citing sections 24(1) – national security and 43(2) – commercial interests of the FOIA. On review the Council maintained its reliance on section 24(1) and added section 38(1) – health and safety, but dropped the application of section 43(2), saying it did not hold the information to which it applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council is entitled to rely on section 24(1) to withhold the information, and as a result it has not been necessary to consider the application of section 38(1). She concludes that on the balance of probability, the Council does not hold the remainder of the information.
FOI 24: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50884438

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653599

Lilleshall Parish Council (Local Government): ICO 5 May 2020

The complainant has requested information held by Lilleshall Parish Council in respect of land lying to the South East of Barrack Lane, Lilleshall, known as Builder’s Yard. The Commissioner has decided that Lilleshall Parish Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR but has contravened Regulation5(2).
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fer0891014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653597

BBC (Other): ICO 26 Nov 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to asbestos at Television Centre 2 including asbestos registers, records related to removal, asbestos surveys and test and details of minutes of meetings relating to the removal of asbestos. The BBC refused the request on the basis it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA to comply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly refused the request under section 12 but failed to fulfil its obligations under section 16 by providing advice and assistance at the time of the request. The Commissioner now requires the BBC to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to assist in narrowing the request.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-118859

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.675050