Tag: Information

Defra v Information Commissioner and SB: UTAA 26 Jan 2011

Information rights – Freedom of information – public authority response

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 39 (AAC), [2012] AACR 32

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Birkett v The Department for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 21-Dec-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433458

Office Of Communications v UK Information Commissioner: ECJ 10 Mar 2011

ECJ (Opinion of Advocate General Kokott) Directive 2003/4/EC – Access to environmental information – Exceptions – Public interest in disclosure – Interest served by refusal – Balancing exercise – Cumulation of interests.

Citations:

C-71/10, [2011] EUECJ C-71/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Office Of Communications v UK Information Commissioner ECJ 28-Jul-2011
ECJ Public access to environmental information – Directive 2003/4/EC – Article 4 – Exceptions to the right of access – Request for access involving more than one of the interests protected under Article 4(2) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430719

Suede/ Mytravel Et Commission (Law Governing The Institutions): ECJ 3 Mar 2011

ECJ Appeal – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process – Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice – Overriding public interest in disclosure – Documents relating to Commission decisions on concentrations – Acquisition of First Choice plc by Airtours plc.

Citations:

C-506/08, [2011] EUECJ C-506/08 – O, [2011] EUECJ C-506/08

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430347

British Broadcasting Corporation v Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information Act 2000): FTTGRC 8 Feb 2010

FTTGRC Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Authorities to which Act has limited application – whether information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature – FOIA s 7(1) – FOIA Sch 1 Pt VI.

Citations:

[2010] UKIT 2009 – 0015, [2010] UKFTT EA – 2009 – 0015 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428769

Commission v Austria C-189/09: ECJ 29 Jul 2010

ECJ (Approximation Of Laws) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 2006/24/EC – Protection of Privacy – Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period.

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-189/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2006/24/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422128

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 23 Jan 2017

The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a particular clinic run by the Trust, sent, or received by the office of two named doctors. The Trust provided some of the requested information but refused to provide the remainder under the exemptions provided by section 36(2) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, section 40(2) – personal data and section 41 – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which it has been applied, similarly sections 41 and 40(2) can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which they have been applied. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which is not protected by any of the exemptions cited as identified in the confidential annex which has been provided to the Trust.
FOI 36: Partly upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 41: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50616004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.579824

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jul 2012

ICO The complainant requested from Whittington Hospital NHS Trust a copy of the full documentation for the assessment of eligibility for the Blue Badge Scheme which provides parking concessions for disabled people. The Trust provided some information but withheld the detailed scoring criteria for the assessment under section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) to the withheld information and he does not require it to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50434032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.529684

Canterbury City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 21 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested copies of the responses of two individuals he had made a complaint about. Canterbury City Council (the council) refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50690561

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.602377

Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v O’Brien and Information Commissioner: QBD 10 Feb 2009

The court considered a claim for legal professional privilege by the Department.
Held: The Tribunal had properly directed itself that there was a strong public interest in non-disclosure inbuilt into legal professional privilege but: ‘In the light of the consistent line taken by the Tribunal as to the weight to be attached to the public interest against disclosure inbuilt into legal professional privilege (an approach I have found to be the correct one) it was incumbent upon the Tribunal in the instant case to give significant weight to that interest. Further, the Tribunal was obliged to consider whether the weight to be given to the public interest considerations militating against disclosure were countered by considerations of at least an equal weight which supported an order for disclosure.’
The Tribunal had failed to attach appropriate weight to the exemption and said: ‘The inbuilt public interest in withholding information to which legal professional privilege applies is acknowledged to command significant weight. Accordingly, the proper approach for the Tribunal was to acknowledge and give significant weight to be afforded to the exemption in any event; ascertain whether there were particular or further factors in the instant case which pointed to non-disclosure and then consider whether the feature supporting disclosure (including the underlying public interests which favour disclosure) would have equal weight at the very least.’

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 164 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HM Treasury v The Information Commissioner Admn 21-Jul-2009
Disclosure of Government’s Legal Advice
The interested party sought to obtain the legal opinion on which the Prime Minister had based his assertion that the Financial Services and Markets Bill complied with Human Rights. The respondent refused claiming protection under the section, and . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 2-Oct-2009
Disclosure was sought of a report prepared by the BBC to assess the balance of its coverage of middle east affairs. The BBC said that the information was not held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature. One issue was whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.314297

Ben Henderson and Perth and Kinross Council: SIC 5 Jan 2012

Mr Ben Henderson asked Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for (a) information relating to the actions and practices of Building Standards staff which resulted in recent disciplinary action, and (b) information on actions or practices of staff in the past which gave reason for suspicion that Council staff, particularly those from the Building Standards and Planning section, may have been involved in similar actions or practices prior to the current case. The Council refused to disclose the information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 30(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) and 38(1)(b) (personal data) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Mr Henderson remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had partially failed to deal with Mr Henderson’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that by applying the exemption in section 38(1)(b) of FOISA to all of the withheld information, which fell within scope of part (a) of Mr Henderson’s request, the Council complied with Part 1.
However, in failing to notify Mr Henderson that it does not (and did not at the time of Mr Henderson’s request) hold any relevant recorded information which would address part (b) of his request, the Council failed to comply with Part 1 and in particular section 17(1) of FOISA. Since this decision makes the position clear on this point, the Commissioner did not require the Council to take any action in relation to this breach.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 003 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.451505

Suffolk County Council (Local Government): ICO 8 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information held by Suffolk County Council on the proposal to build a bypass in Sudbury. The information requested included correspondence with consultants, government departments and other parties on the bypass as well as a copy of the Business Plan. The Council provided information in response to the request but the complainant considered further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance, the Council has complied with the request and fulfilled its obligations under the EIR by providing the information within the scope of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50721134

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.617535

Glen Cawthra and Orkney Islands Council: SIC 9 Oct 2014

SIC On 4 June 2014, Mr Cawthra asked Orkney islands Council (the Council) for information relating to a specified route over a period of 15 years. The Council provided Mr Cawthra with some information, but informed him that it was not obliged to comply with his request as the cost of doing so would be more than andpound;600.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner concluded that there was insufficient evidence to allow her to accept the Council’s cost estimate. She required the Council to give another response to Mr Cawthra’s request.

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 219 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.538106

Wealden District Council (Local Government): ICO 30 Jan 2018

The complainant requested information held by Wealden District Council relating to its five year housing land supply and a meeting that took place on 26 October 2015. The council initially withheld information under section 42 of the FOIA (legal professional privilege). After reconsideration of the request under the EIR, the council identified additional information relevant to the request, some of which it then supplied to the complainant. The council applied regulation 13 -personal data, regulation 12(4)(e)-internal communications, and regulation 12(5)(b)-course of justice, to the remaining information. After further intervention by the Commissioner, the council then supplied the complainant with information that had been withheld under regulation 13. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) and 12 (5)(b) with regards to the remaining withheld information. However, she has found the council to have breached regulations 14(1) and 14(2) by failing to provide a refusal notice that complied with the provisions contained within the EIR. It has also breached regulation 5(2) as it did not provide the complainant with copies of all relevant information within the prescribed time of 20 working days. As it appears it has now provided the complainant with all relevant information, it has complied with regulation 5(1).
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 13: Complaint upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 14(2): Complaint not upheld EIR 14(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0664513

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.617432

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 25 Jul 2017

The complainant has requested information about agreements, licences and memorandums of understanding (‘MOUs’) between the Home Office and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘KSA’). The Home Office disclosed some information about a particular MOU and also certain import/export licences. It withheld the remaining information in connection with the MOU under the exemptions at sections 24(1) (national security) and 27(1)(a) (international relations), and it withheld information about the import/export licenses under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any other information falling within scope of the request, citing section 27(4)(a) and (b) (international relations) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 27(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold information about the MOU. It was also entitled to rely on section 27(4) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held further information. However, the Home Office did not apply the section 43(2) exemption correctly. It also breached section 10(1) by failing to comply with section 1(1) within the time for compliance, and section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice within the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a fresh response to part (iv) of the request. The information should either be disclosed or a further refusal notice provided which is compliant with section 17 of the FOIA and which does not rely on section 43(2) of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 27: Not upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50666028

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.593858

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 30 Nov 2017

The complainant requested information relating to disabled refugees. By the date of this notice, the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50697498

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.602416

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 29 Nov 2017

The complainant requested information about the individuals scheduled to have been deported on charter flights to two named African countries on specified dates. The Home Office confirmed that it held the relevant information but withheld some of it relying on the FOIA exemptions in sections 31(1)(e) (law enforcement as it relates to the operation of the immigration controls) and 27 (international relations). The Home Office extended the response period to conduct a public interest balancing test but has still not completed the test. The Commissioner decided that, although it has complied with section 17(1) FOIA in stating which exemptions are to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test consideration within a reasonable time period the Home Office had breached section 17(3) FOIA. The Commissioner also found breaches of sections 1(1) and 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose now the information it holds that is not subject to the exemptions applied, and; issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the withheld information or issuing a refusal notice which includes the outcome of the public interest considerations.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50698716

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.602417

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 13 Jan 2015

ICO The complainant requested information in relation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) air strikes in Serbia and Kosovo in March 1999. The Commissioner decided the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and section 42(1) FOIA to withhold information within the scope of the request. He also decided that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 23(5) and 24(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of sections 23(1) and 24(1) FOIA. Furthermore, that the public authority was also entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of section 35(1)(b) FOIA. The Commissioner however found the public authority in breach of section 10(1) FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld FOI 27: Not upheld FOI 35: Not upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50528132

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.554694

Hackney London Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 5 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) information concerning its considered usage of the site Audrey Street Depot E2 8QH for educational purposes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. Therefore, she does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50683394

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.617472

Thanet District Council (Local Government): ICO 13 Jul 2018

The complainant requested information about the number of councillors and members of the corporate management team who had been in arrears on their council tax. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thanet District Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50737168

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.621383

Westminster City Council (Local Government): ICO 25 Jan 2018

The complainant has requested information on a complete and up-to-date list of all business (non-residential) property rates data held by Westminster Council under the FOI Act (‘the Act’). The council applied section 31(1)(a) of the Act to the information stating that it would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime to disclose the information because it would provide details which would facilitate the commission of fraud against the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 31(1)(a) of the Act was engaged however the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that in the exemption being maintained. The council was therefore not correct to withhold the information under section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 31: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50681283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.617433

Thanet District Council (Local Government): ICO 27 Jul 2018

The complainant requested copies of information provided to a specific firm for the purposes of carrying out a valuation on a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thanet District 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 Commissioner requires the 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:

[2018] UKICO fs50759387

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.621384

Hackney London Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 18 May 2018

The complainant made a request for information on 17 January 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hackney failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to request number FOI18-0117-18426.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50738437

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.617798

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested information concerned with medical treatment that her late father received from the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust correctly relied on section 14(1) as a basis for not complying with the complainant’s request for information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0124 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421679

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529527

Sport England (Decision Notice): ICO 29 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested detailed information about 1,269 amateur basketball clubs which had been awarded grants by Sport England. Sport England calculated that the request could not be complied with without exceeding the appropriate costs limit, and that the exemption at section 12 applied. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Sport England was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA, as to determine whether or not the information was held would exceed the appropriate limit. However, he also found that Sport England breached section 16 by failing to offer the complainant reasonable assistance with reducing the scope of his request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0139 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435086

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529531

Shotteswell Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested minutes of any meetings where the parish council had discussed the removal of signs which had been erected on a footpath by the county council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shotteswell Parish Council did not respond to the complainant under the correct legislation. The information is environmental information and the council should have responded to the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. He has also decided that the council breached the Act in that it did not respond to the complainant within 20 working days as required by regulation 5(2). As the information has now been disclosed to the Commissioner he has not ordered any steps within this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50436024

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.529528