Citations:
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0128
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Information
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383905
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0128
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383905
[2008] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0047
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383924
[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0037
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383854
Appeal from decision notice – refused.
[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0095
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383859
[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0065
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383844
IT Information Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2005 as amended – Application for striking out, Rule 9
[2009] UKIT EA – 2009 – 0031
Information Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2005
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383861
[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0085
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383842
[2009] UKIT EA – 2009 – 0061
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383884
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0090
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383892
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0091
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383893
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0133
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383895
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0120
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383894
[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0084
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383851
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0137
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383897
[2009] UKIT EA – 2009 – 0030
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383839
[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0037
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383840
[2014] ScotIC 014 – 2014
Scotland
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.522701
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act.
Held: The claim failed. As a matter of ordinary common law construction, the construction is clear: section 32 was intended to provide an absolute exemption which would not cease abruptly at the end of the court, arbitration or inquiry proceedings, but would continue until the relevant documents became historical records; that however does not mean that the information held by the Charity Commission as a result of its inquiries may not be required to be disclosed outside section 32 under other statutory and/or common law powers preserved by section 78 of the FOIA. The claim had been argued on the basis that section 32 of the FOIA can and should be read down to have a meaning contrary to that which Parliament clearly intended. It followed that no basis existed for any declaration of incompatibility with article 10 of the Convention.
Lord Toulson said: ‘it was not the purpose of the Human Rights Act that the common law should become an ossuary’.
Orse Kennedy v Information Commissioner (Secretary of State for Justice intervening)
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 20, [2015] 1 AC 455, [2014] EMLR 19, [2014] HRLR 14, [2014] WLR(D) 143, [2014] 2 All ER 847, [2014] 2 WLR 808, UKSC 2012/0122
Freedom of Information Act 2000 32(2), Public Records Act 1958 3, Charities Act 1993, Charities Act 2006, European Convention on Human Rights 2 10, Inquiries Act 2005
England and Wales
At Information Tribunal – Kennedy v Information Commissioner IT 14-Jun-2009
The claimant sought release of documents placed with the Charity Commission in connection with investigations into a charity.
Held: With certain exceptions, the applicaion failed: ‘once a public authority places documents it held prior to an . .
At Admin – Kennedy v Information Commissioner Admn 19-Jan-2010
The claimant journalist had made a freedom of information request to the Charity Commission as to its investigations of a charity under section 8 of the 1993 Act. The Commission claimed absolute exemption under section 32(2). He now appealed against . .
Appeal from – Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 12-May-2011
The claimant, a journalist, sought further information from the Charity Commission after the release of three investigations into the ‘Mariam Appeal’ and questions about the source and use of its funds. The Commission replied that it was exempt . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
Cited – Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard Trogir CA 19-Dec-1997
In the case of an arbitration, there is a strong contractual presumption in favour of confidentiality and against non-disclosure. But this may be overridden by a court where necessary to protect a party’s rights against a third party or in other . .
Cited – Department of Economic Policy and Development of City of Moscow and Another v Bankers Trust Company and Another CA 25-Mar-2004
The word ‘private’ in rule 39.2 means the same as ‘secret’. Lord Justice Mance said: ‘It may be equated with the old ‘in camera’ procedure, rather than the old ‘in chambers’ procedure.’ Privacy and confidentiality are features long assumed to be . .
Cited – Doherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
Cited – Kay And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 17-Oct-2008
. .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
Cited – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
Cited – Crampton v Secretary of State for Health CA 9-Jul-1993
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Wagstaff etc QBD 31-Aug-2000
The Secretary of State announced a public enquiry into the Shipman case. He did not say whether it would be a public enquiry. The bereaved families and media wanted it to be public, and contended that it had been invalidly constituted, that an . .
Cited – Regina (Persey and Others) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 15-Mar-2002
The applicants sought an order that the government enquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak should be held in public. They argued that the need to re-establish public faith made a decision not to hold the enquiries in public irrational, and that a . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith; ex parte Grady CA 3-Nov-1995
Four appellants challenged the policy of the ministry to discharge homosexuals from the armed services.
Held: Where a measure affects fundamental rights or has profoundly intrusive effects, the courts will anxiously scrutinise the decision to . .
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Q and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Mar-2003
The Home Secretary appealed a ruling that his implementation of section 55 was unlawful, having been said to be incompatible with human rights law.
Held: The way in which the section had been operated, by denying consideration and all benefits . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading and others v IBA Health Limited CA 19-Feb-2004
The OFT had considered whether it was necessary to refer a merger between two companies to the Competition Commission, and decided against. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that the proposed merger should have been referred. The OFT and parties . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Eastside Cheese Company (a Firm) and R A Duckett and Co Interested CA 1-Jul-1999
The respondent had made an order banning the processing of milk products from the interested party’s farm into cheese products. Cheese manufacturers objected to the order. The order had been held unlawful, and the Secretary of State now appealed. . .
Cited – Sinclair Collis Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Health CA 17-Jun-2011
The claimants sought to challenge the validity of rules brought in under the 2009 Act as to the placement of cigarette vending machines in retail outlets. They said it was a a national measure restricting the free movement of goods. The . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and Another Ex Parte First City trading Etc QBD 20-Dec-1996
EU law principles do not apply in domestic law unless implementing EU law. Laws J said that: ‘Wednesbury and European review are two different models – one looser, one tighter -of the same juridical concept, which is the imposition of compulsory . .
Cited – Leander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
Cited – Gaskin v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
The applicant complained of ill-treatment while he was in the care of a local authority and living with foster parents. He sought access to his case records held by the local authority but his request was denied.
Held: The refusal to allow him . .
Cited – Guerra and Others v Italy ECHR 19-Feb-1998
(Grand Chamber) The applicants lived about 1km from a chemical factory which produced fertilizers and other chemicals and was classified as ‘high risk’ in criteria set out by Presidential Decree.
Held: Failure by a government to release to an . .
Cited – Roche v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been exposed to harmful chemicals whilst in the Army at Porton Down in 1953. He had wished to claim a service pension on the basis of the ensuing personal injury, but had been frustrated by many years of the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini and others (The Redress Trust Intervening) HL 13-Jun-2007
Complaints were made as to the deaths of six Iraqi civilians which were the result of actions by a member or members of the British armed forces in Basra. One of them, Mr Baha Mousa, had died as a result of severe maltreatment in a prison occupied . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Cited – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
Cited – Smith and Others v The Ministry of Defence SC 19-Jun-2013
The claimants were PRs of men who had died or were severely injured on active duty in Iraq being variously fired at by mistake by other coalition forces, or dying in vehicles attacked by roadside bombs. Appeals were heard against a finding that the . .
Cited – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
Cited – Matky v Czech Republic ECHR 10-Jul-2006
(French Text) Members of an environmental group sought access to the original project documents lodged with a government department. They wanted to compare the plans with revised plans which were currently the subject of an environmental assessment. . .
Cited – Tarsasag A Szabadsagjogokert v Hungary ECHR 13-Nov-2008
The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union sought access to details of a legal challenge filed by a Hungarian parliamentarian in the Hungarian Constitutional Court concerning the constitutionality of legislative amendments to the Hungarian Criminal Code. . .
Cited – Kenedi v Hungary ECHR 26-May-2009
(Second Chamber) The applicant historian specialised in the analysis and recording of the secret services of dictatorships, comparative studies of the political police forces of totalitarian regimes and the functioning of Soviet-type States. The . .
Cited – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 2-Nov-2010
The applicant, professor in adolescent psychiatry had collected assorted data after having given undertakings to the parents of the children as to its absolute privacy. A sociologist had applied for and been given authority for its release by the . .
Cited – Shapovalov v Ukraine ECHR 31-Jul-2012
The claimant, a Ukrainian journalist said that he had (contrary to the Ukranian Information Act 1992) been refused access by administrative authorities during the 2004 elections to certain information and meetings. He relied on article 6 because the . .
Cited – Youth Initiative For Human Rights v Serbia ECHR 25-Jun-2013
The Court heard of a refusal by the Serbian intelligence agency to provide the complainant with information as to how many people had been the subject of electronic surveillance by the agency. The Serbian Information Commissioner – whose role was to . .
Cited – Osterreichische Vereinigung Zur Erhaltung, Starkung Und Schaffung v Austria ECHR 28-Nov-2013
All agricultural and forest land transactions in Austria required approval by local and regional authorities (in the Tyrol, the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Commission), the aim being to preserve land for agriculture and forestry and avoid the . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Cited – Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 27-Jan-2016
An Egyptian national, had lived here since 1994. He challenged a decision by the Secretary of State,as a member of the committee of the United Nations Security Council, known as the Resolution 1267 Committee or Sanctions Committee. The committee . .
Cited – Michalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Cited – Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .
Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.523195
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations made. The AG sought to restrain those publications.
Held: A duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person (the confidant) in circumstances where he has notice, or is held to have agreed, that the information is confidential, with the effect that it would be just in all the circumstances that he should be precluded from disclosing the information to others. There would be no point in imposing a duty of confidence in respect of the secrets of the marital bed if newspapers were free to publish those secrets when betrayed to them by the unfaithful partner. When trade secrets are betrayed by a confidant it is usually the third party who exploits the information and it is the activity of the third party that must be stopped.
The court could look to the Convention to help decide how common law should develop. There was in principle no difference between article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the English law of confidence. ‘the principle of confidentiality only applies to information to the extent that it is confidential. In particular, once it has entered what is usually called the public domain (which means no more than that the information in question is so generally accessible that, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as confidential) then, as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it.’ and ‘ I conceive it to be my duty, when I am free to do so, to interpret the law in accordance with the obligations of the Crown under [the Convention]. But for present purposes the important words are ‘when I am free to do so’. The sovereign legislator in the United Kingdom is Parliament. If Parliament has plainly laid down the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply it, whether that would involve the Crown in breach of an international treaty or not.’
Lord Griffiths considered the correct approach to the defence of public interest in a copyright action: ‘If Peter Wright owns the copyright in Spycatcher, which I doubt, it seems to me extremely unlikely that any court in this country would uphold his claim to copyright if any newspaper or any third party chose to publish Spycatcher and keep such profits as they might make to themselves. I would expect a judge to say that the disgraceful circumstances in which he wrote and published Spycatcher disentitled him to seek the assistance of the court to obtain any redress: see Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co. [1916] 1 Ch. 261.’ A third limiting principle of the protection afforded by the law of confidence was ‘although the basis of the law’s protection of confidence is that there is a public interest that confidences should be preserved and protected by the law, nevertheless that public interest may be outweighed by some other countervailing public interest which favours disclosure. This limitation may apply, as the learned judge pointed out, to all types of confidential information. It is this limiting principle which may require a court to carry out a balancing operation, weighing the public interest in maintaining confidence against a countervailing public interest favouring disclosure.’
Lord Jauncey said: ‘The courts of the United Kingdom will not enforce copyright claims in relation to every original literary work . . The publication of Spycatcher was against the public interest and was in breach of the duty of confidence which Peter Wright owed to the Crown. His action reeked of turpitude. It is in these circumstances inconceivable that a United Kingdom court would afford to him or his publishers any protection in relation to any copyright which either of them may possess in the book.’
Lord Goff of Chievely said that an obligation of confidence could arise even where the information in question had not been confided by a confider to a confidant: ‘I realise that, in the vast majority of cases, in particular those concerned with trade secrets, the duty of confidence will arise from a transaction or relationship between the parties – often a contract, in which event the duty may arise by reason of either an express or an implied term of that contract. It is in such cases as these that the expressions ‘confider’ and ‘confidant’ are perhaps most aptly employed. But it is well settled that a duty of confidence may arise in equity independently of such cases; and I have expressed the circumstances in which the duty arises in broad terms, not merely to embrace those cases where a third party receives information from a person who is under a duty of confidence in respect of it, knowing that it has been disclosed by that person to him in breach of his duty of confidence, but also to include certain situations, beloved of law teachers – where an obviously confidential document is wafted by an electric fan out of a window into a crowded street, or where an obviously confidential document, such as a private diary, is dropped in a public place, and is then picked up by a passer-by.’
Lord Goff set out three limiting principles for the rights of confidentiality: ‘The first limiting principle (which is rather an expression of the scope of the duty) is highly relevant to this appeal. It is that the principle of confidentiality only applies to information to the extent that it is confidential. In particular, once it has entered what is usually called the public domain (which means no more than that the information in question is so generally accessible that, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as confidential) then, as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it.
The second limiting principle is that the duty of confidence applies neither to useless information, nor to trivia. There is no need for me to develop this point.
The third limiting principle is of far greater importance. It is that, although the basis of the law’s protection of confidence is that there is a public interest that confidences should be preserved and protected by the law, nevertheless that public interest may be outweighed by some other countervailing public interest which favours disclosure. This limitation may apply, as the learned judge pointed out, to all types of confidential information. It is this limiting principle which may require a court to carry out a balancing operation, weighing the public interest in maintaining confidence against a countervailing public interest favouring disclosure’.
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Griffiths, Lord Jauncey
[1990] 1 AC 109, [1988] UKHL 6, [1987] 1 WLR 776, [1988] 3 All ER 545
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Approved – O Mustad and Son v Dosen and Another; O Mustad and Son vAllcock HL 1924
(Heard in 1924, but noted only in 1963) Dosen worked for a company T under a contract of employment that included an undertaking to keep confidential information acquired at work. His employer went into liquidation. The benefit of that company’s . .
Approved – Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans CA 1985
Lion Laboratories manufactured and marketed the Lion Intoximeter which was used by the police for measuring blood alcohol levels of motorists. Two ex-employees approached the Press with four documents taken from Lion. The documents indicated that . .
Cited – Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co 1916
Relief for copyright infringement was refused where the nature of the work tended to gross immorality. Younger J said that it was: ‘clear law that copyright cannot exist in a work of a tendency so grossly immoral as this, a work which apart from its . .
Cited – Bile Bean Manufacturing Co v Davidson SCS 1906
The second division refused relief against copyright infringement to a company which had perpetrated a deliberate fraud on the public by a series of false factual statements about its products. Lord Justice-Clerk Lord Macdonald said: ‘No man is . .
Cited – Slingsby v Bradford Patent Truck and Trolley Co 1905
Equitable relief was refused for an infringement of copyright where the work made false statements with intention to deceive the public. . .
See Also – Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.1) HL 13-Aug-1987
A retired secret service officer intended to publish his memoirs through the defendant. The house heard an appeal against a temporary injunction restraining publication.
Held: Lord Bridge delivered his dissenting speech in the case of . .
At First Instance – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd QBD 1988
A Mr Peter Wright had written a book about his service in MI5. The Crown sought to restrain publication of the book by newspapers and also, as against The Sunday Times, an account of profits.
Held: As to this latter Scott J, said: ‘I had . .
Appeal From – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd CA 2-Jan-1988
A former employee of the Secret Service had written a book (‘Spycatcher’). The AG sought several remedies including damages against a newspaper for serialising it. Dillon LJ said: ‘It has seemed to me throughout the hearing of this appeal that there . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Greater Manchester Newspapers Ltd QBD 4-Dec-2001
The defendant newspaper had published facts relating to the whereabouts of two youths protected by injunction against the publication of any information likely to lead to their location. The injunction was not ambiguous or unclear. ‘Likely’ did not . .
Cited – Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same CA 8-May-2003
The claimants sought damages for injuries alleged to have been received at the hands of prison officers whilst in prison. They now sought disclosure by the police of statements made to the police during the course of their investigation.
Held: . .
Cited – Kiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Campbell 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 . .
Cited – Tillery Valley Foods v Channel Four Television, Shine Limited ChD 18-May-2004
The claimant sought an injunction to restrain the defendants broadcasting a film, claiming that it contained confidential material. A journalist working undercover sought to reveal what he said were unhealthy practices in the claimant’s meat . .
Cited – X, A Woman Formerly Known As Mary Bell v Stephen O’Brien, News Group Newspapers Ltd MGN Ltd QBD 21-May-2003
An injunction effective against the world, was granted to restrain any act to identify the claimant in the media, including the Internet. She had been convicted of murder when a child, and had since had a child herself. An order had been granted . .
Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – Paddick v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Dec-2003
The defendant sought disclosure of full statements used by the claimant . Extracts only had been supplied, and he said they contained private and confidential material.
Held: The application failed. The claimant had stated that the balance of . .
Cited – EPI Environmental Technologies Inc and Another v Symphony Plastic Technologies Plc and Another ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimant had developed an additive which would assist in making plastic bags bio-degradable. They alleged that, in breach of confidentiality agreements, the defendants had copied the product. The defendants said the confidentiality agreement was . .
Cited – Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland, News Group Newspapers Ltd, News International Ltd, Murrell CA 10-Feb-2000
The court considered a dispute about ownership and confidence in and copyright of of video tapes taken by Princess Diana before her death.
Held: The courts have an inherent discretion to refuse to enforce of copyright. When assessing whether . .
Cited – Douglas 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 . .
Cited – Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire QBD 13-Jan-1995
The police were asked by shopkeepers concerned about shoplifting, for photographs of thieves so that the staff would recognise them. The police provided photographs including one of the claimant taken in custody. The traders were told only to show . .
Approved – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Axon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another Admn 23-Jan-2006
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful.
Cited – McKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales CA 21-Dec-2006
The defendant newspaper appealed summary judgment against it for breach of confidence and copyright infringement having published the claimant’s journals which he said were private.
Held: Upheld, although the judge had given insufficient . .
Cited – Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Cited – Callaghan v Independent News and Media Ltd QBNI 7-Jan-2009
callaghan_inmQBNI2009
The claimant was convicted in 1987 of a callous sexual murder. He sought an order preventing the defendant newspaper publishing anything to allow his or his family’s identification and delay his release. The defendant acknowledged the need to avoid . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Guardian News Media Ltd QBD 19-Mar-2009
The bank sought continuation of an injunction preventing publication by the defendant of papers leaked to relating to the claimant’s tax management. The claimant claimed in confidentiality. The papers did not reveal any unlawful activity. The . .
Cited – Tchenguiz 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 . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v Harpercollins Publishers Ltd and Another ChD 4-Oct-2010
The claimant sought an injunction and damages to prevent the defendant publishing a book identifying himself as ‘the Stig’ saying that this broke his undertaking of confidentialty as to his identity, a necessary part of the character in the TV . .
Cited – Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same ChD 25-Feb-2011
The claimants said that agents of the defendant had unlawfully accessed their mobile phone systems. The court was now asked whether the agent (M) could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, and otherwise as to the progress of the case. . .
Cited – Steen v Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Attorney-General v Punch Ltd and Another CA 23-Mar-2001
The appellant appealed against a finding of contempt of court at common law as regards a report in Punch published when he had been its editor.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The A-G had failed to establish the mens rea of contempt in the . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (1) QBD 16-May-2011
A leading footballer had obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing his identity and allegations of sexual misconduct. The claimant said that she had demanded money not to go public.
Held: It had not been suggested that . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Thomas (2) QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained a privacy injunction, but the name of the claimant had nevertheless been widey distributed on the Internet. The defendant newspaper now sought to vary the terms. The second defendant did not oppose the injunction. . .
Cited – Goodwin v NGN Ltd and VBN QBD 9-Jun-2011
The claimant had obtained an injunction preventing publication of his name and that of his coworker with whom he had had an affair. After widespread publication of his name elsewhere, the defendant had secured the discharge of the order as regards . .
Cited – KJO v XIM QBD 7-Jul-2011
The claimant had, some 20 years previously, been convicted and sentenced for forgery of a will. The defendants, relatives, had ever since written to those with whom he had dealings to tell them of the conviction and facts. The claimant, unable to . .
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Cited – Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd and Another CA 19-Dec-2011
The claimant had obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant publishing private materials regarding him. That injunction had been continued by consent but was no challenged by a third party news publisher.
Held: Leave to appeal was . .
Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v Harris and Others ChD 5-Feb-2013
The court was asked whether a copyright owner has a proprietary claim to money derived from infringement of the copyright.
Held: He did not. No such argument could be shown to have suceeded before. . .
Cited – Vestergaard Frandsen A/S and Others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and Others SC 22-May-2013
The claimant companies appealed against a reversal of their judgment against a former employee that she had misused their confidential trade secrets after leaving their employment. The companies manufactured and supplied bednets designed to prevent . .
Cited – Martin and Others Gabriele v Giambrone P/A Giambrone and Law QBNI 5-Mar-2013
The claimants had made investments through their solicitors, the defendants. The investments failed. The defendants were said to have made a foul and threatening posting on facebook about the claimant after failure in earlier proceedings. The . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd SC 19-May-2016
The appellants had applied for restrictions on the publication of stories about their extra marital affairs. The Court of Appeal had removed the restrictions on the basis that the story had been widely spread outside the jurisdiction both on the . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 2) SC 20-Jul-2016
The Court was asked whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) (No 3) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 8-Feb-2018
Diplomatic Protection Lost to Public Domain
The claimant challenged the use of a Marine Protected Area Order to exclude the Chagossians from their homelands on their British Indian Overseas Territory. They had sought to have admitted and used in cross examination of witnesses leaked . .
Cited – Patel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.180685
The complainant has requested information concerning the trustees of the pension scheme of the Abbey Christian Brothers Grammar School (the ‘School’). The School responded to the request and has informed the complainant that he has received all the information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the School has provided all the requested information which it holds and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1(1)(a)(b): Not upheld
[2016] UKICO FS50626916
England and Wales
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.571053
The complainant has requested information on the budget for the London Borough of Lambeth Council’s scheme to build a new town hall as well as details of housing acquisitions made by the developer. The Council provided some information and explanations to the complainant but he was concerned the Council had not provided the specific budget information asked for as well as any updates to the budget that had been made. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided sufficient information to satisfy the request and does not hold any further information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50688844
England and Wales
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.617388
The complainant has requested unredacted financial data sheets for the proposed regeneration of Cressingham Gardens. London Borough of Lambeth Council (‘the Council’) refused the request on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the regulation 12(5)(e) exception is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exception and withholding the information. She requires no steps to be taken.
EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fer0677229
England and Wales
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.617387
ICO The complainant requested information relating to a National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) project called ‘Project Lantern’. NPIA refused the request citing section 12(1) of FOIA, but also redacted and disclosed some information outside of FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that NPIA incorrectly relied on section 12(1) and failed to issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice citing a valid exemption.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50421702
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529512
ICO The complainant requested information from the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (CAFCASS) about the work it carries out with children. CAFCASS provided some information but said that it would exceed the cost limit to comply with one part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that CAFCASS was entitled to refuse to provide the requested information under section 12. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50459762
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529986
ICO The complainant requested information in connection with the decision by the Secretary of State not to list Slough Town Hall as a building of special architectural or historic interest in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) was engaged in respect of the disputed information. However, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure in respect of most of the disputed information. The public authority correctly withheld the names and contact details of junior officials and members of the public on the basis of the exception at regulation 13. The public authority breached regulation 11 for failing to conduct an internal review. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose all of the information he has found was not exempt.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FER0409841
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529052
ICO The complainant requested copies of all correspondence regarding the felling of trees at the School. The School did not confirm or deny whether the information specified in the request was held within the 20 working day time limit. The Decision Notice identified the breach but did not require any steps to be taken as a response was subsequently provided.
FOI 10: Upheld
[2005] UKICO FS50074993
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.533262
ICO The complainant has requested a copy of a letter received by the council’s mayor from her chaplain in connection with a planning application in which the chaplain was an interested party. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council acted correctly in disclosing that part of the letter which related to the planning matter and in relying on the section 41 exemption to continue to withhold the remainder of the letter. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50449294
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529987
ICO The complainant has requested copies of records relating to a dispute between Cambridgeshire County Council . . and an external contractor about the completion of the Guided Busway Scheme; a scheme engineered by the Council with the aim of improving public transport services. The Council informed the complainant that part of the requested information was obtainable from the Technology and Construction Court. For the remainder, the Council advised that the information was subject to the exceptions provided by regulations 12(5)(b) (course of justice), 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and 12(5)(f) (voluntary supply) of the EIR. The Commissioner has found that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR is engaged and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours the withholding of the information. He does not therefore require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50431297
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529984
ICO The complainant has requested information about confidentiality clauses, agreements and policies that the public authority’s staff need to comply with as well as information about disciplinary action against its staff. The public authority initially found the request to be ‘vexatious’ but subsequently provided some information and also relied on the exemptions at sections 40(2) and 41(1). The complainant has not complained about the application of these exemptions so they have not been considered. The Information Commissioner has found no breaches and does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50435645
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529515
ICO The complainant made a series of multipart requests to NHS Blackpool (the trust) in respect of different GP services paid for by the trust. The trust provided some information in its initial response and decided to disclose further information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The trust relied on section 43(2) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was not engaged in respect of some of the withheld information, that a small amount of the requested information is not held, and that the remainder of the information was correctly withheld under section 43(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information in respect of which section 43(2) is not engaged (points 3 (f), and 5 (c) and (f)).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50415788
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529513
IC The complainant requested copies of all correspondence and other documentation held by the school relating to himself and his daughter, a pupil at the school. The school provided the information but failed to do so within 20 working days. The Decision Notice did not therefore identify any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld
[2005] UKICO FS50068232
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.533263
[2014] UKICO FS50500808
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.527503
ICO The complainant requested information in relation to the proposed site for a particular development referred to in the Eastleigh Borough Council’s draft local development plan. The Council stated that the information requested was exempt under regulation 12(4)(e). At the time of its internal review, the Council also sought to rely in regulation 12(4)(d) in relation to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged for some information but the public interest favours disclosure, and regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged for all of the withheld information, but the public interest in disclosure of the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. For information which engages both exceptions the public interest in disclosure outweighs the aggregated public interest in maintaining both regulation 12(4)(d) and regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.d – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld
[2013] UKICO FER0456669
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.528077
ICO The complainant has requested whether there was any CCTV footage of an incident involving one of the Council’s buses which occurred on 16 November 2010. Following the Commissioner’s procedural decision notice (reference number FS50402885) instructing the Council to comply with section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) by either confirming whether the requested information was held or issuing a valid refusal notice under section 17 of the Act, the Council contacted the complainant to confirm that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Monmouthshire County Council has now complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0123 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50435215
Freedom of Information Act 2000 1(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529511
ICO The complainant holds a private pilot’s licence. The CAA was informed by a third party (the informant) that the complainant was ill and therefore expressed concern about his fitness to fly. The complainant requested copies of all the relevant correspondence held by the CAA and specifically asked for the name and address of the informant. The CAA refused to disclose the information citing the exemption relating to personal information provided by section 40. The Commissioner decided that personal data relating to the informant was covered by the section 40(1) exemption and could not be disclosed without breaching the First Data Protection Principle.
FOI 40: Not upheld
[2005] UKICO FS50065361
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.533266
The complainant requested how many complaints had been made to the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) regarding the decision to axe British dance band recordings from ‘Sunday Night at Ten’. The BBC refused to provide the requested information arguing that journalistic judgement would be compromised by audience feedback being available and that this information fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the Act’) because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held for the purpose of journalism, art and literature. Therefore the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2009] UKICO FS50236393
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.532283
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) which asked for 50 specific documents which he identified by both their title and reference number on DFID’s electronic document records management system. DFID withheld 40 documents in their entirety; disclosed 8 documents in a redacted format and explained that the remaining 2 documents were in fact duplicates of other documents. DFID relied on the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a) to (d); 35(1)(a); 38(1)(a) and (b); 40(2) and 43(2) of the Act to withhold the information not provided to the complainant. The Commissioner has reviewed the information that has been withheld and is satisfied that sections 27(1)(a) to (d) and section 40(2) provide a basis to withhold this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld
[2011] UKICO FS50312175
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.530310
The complainant has requested a copy of the full set of care records for his deceased daughter. Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided the complainant with a full set of care records under the Access to Health Care Records Act 1990 (AHRA). The complainant does not consider that he has been provided with the full set of care records. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21(1) would be applicable in this case as the requested information is reasonably accessible outside of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld
[2011] UKICO FS50406743
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.530940
The BBC appealed against an order for it to disclose salaries of various of its employees and of payments to contractors, and of budgets for certain programmes. The issue was as to whether the information was held other than for the purposes of journalism.
Irwin J
[2009] EWHC 2348 (Admin)
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375612
Scope of the Request for information. Approach to interpretation. FOIA 2000 s. 1.
[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0049
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373731
[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0056
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373728
The complainant has requested information regarding contracts between the Department for International Development (DfID) and external organisations. DfID aggregated the requests as provided under section 12(4) of the Act and refused to comply with the requests citing section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfID is entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) and is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the Act to refuse to comply with the requests. However, the Commissioner considers that DfID has not complied with its obligations under section 16 of the Act to provide the complainant with reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with sufficient advice and assistance to enable her to make a meaningful request 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 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50681722
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.602488
The complainant made 4 multi-limbed information requests to the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). Having initially found that all the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA the MPS subsequently revised its position. It provided some information and determined that it either didn’t hold the remaining information or that it would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA to establish whether or not it was held; it provided advice and assistance to the complaint who did not revise any part of his requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS correctly concluded that either the information was not held or that section 12(2) applies; she also finds that it complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16(1) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50672293
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593979
The complainant has requested information about the loss of 13 murder files from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS refused to provide the information citing sections 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings), 38(1)(a) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 38(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 38: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50683418
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.602426
The complainant asked the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) to confirm or deny whether it was conducting, or intending to conduct, a particular investigation. The MPS would neither confirm nor deny any such investigation citing the exemptions at section 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation; she did not therefore consider the citing of section 30(3). No steps are required.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50688381
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.617391
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Department for International Development (DfID). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusion at section 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that DfID was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
FOI 31: Complaint partly upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50662675
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.617574
The complainant has submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for information about its decision to suspend payments to Development Aid People to People Malawi. DFID refused to answer the request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA because it estimated that fulfilling the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has concluded that DFID is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse this request. She has also concluded that DFID complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA by providing the complainant with advice and assistance to allow him to submit a revised request.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50686269
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.602390
The complainant made two information requests about Jean Charles de Menezes and Cressida Dick to the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS found the requests to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50707518
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.617496
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for a copy of an evaluation report of the Pilot Health PPP Advisory Facility. DFID sought to withhold this information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), and 27(2) (international relations), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(2) of FOIA.
FOI 27: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50672673
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593938
The complainant has requested information about meetings held in respect of a particular investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The Commissioner’s decision is that, although it has complied with section 10(1) in confirming that information is held, and 17(1) in stating which exemptions are to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period the MPS has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. Additionally, as it subsequently relied on section 12(2)(cost of compliance), rather than the exemptions previously cited for delaying its response, she finds a further breach of section 17(5). As a response has since been provided, no steps are required.
FOI 10: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50669718
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593867
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for information about Adam Smith International. DFID confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, DFID has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that DFID has breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
FOI 17: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50692999
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.602172
The complainant has requested numbers of police officers who were employed with pre-existing drink driving convictions from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS advised that to confirm or deny whether or not it holds any information would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12(2) and she also finds no breach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance). No steps are required.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50675246
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593980
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) concerning allegations about Development Aid from People to People (DAPP). DFID confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, DFID has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the request. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that DFID has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of this request.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld
[2018] UKICO FS50731784
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.617575
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for a copy of a report produced by KPMG in respect of the administration of how a research programme was being conducted by a Sri Lankan based non-governmental organisation, the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES). DFID withheld the information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemption contained at section 41(1) of FOIA.
FOI 41: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50663088
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593663
Challenge to certificate granted exempting certain classes of data from disclosure for national security reasons
[2002] EWHC 3169 (QB)
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347827
The court considered an application for information under the Act about how the respondent had made its decisions on previous requests for information.
Keith J
[2009] EWHC 1611 (Admin)
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Cited – The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police v The Information Commissioner Admn 21-Jan-2011
A journalist sought information from the appellant as to illegal firearms, and gun crime. The appellant said it would take many hours to prepare the information sought in a disclosable form, saying that the time taken to redact the information . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347442
The complainant has requested a copy of all reports to the Greater Manchester Police service by a named clinical forensic psychiatrist in relation to the police search for, and arrest of, Dale Cregan in 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that Greater Manchester Police has correctly withheld the requested information relying on the section 31(1) FOIA law enforcement exemption. She also found that the police had breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require the Greater Manchester Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 31: Not upheld
[2018] UKICO FS50669281
England and Wales
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.617361
Programme information
[2013] ScotIC 054 – 2013
Scotland
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.514812
[2013] ScotIC 056 – 2013
Scotland
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.514802
Self-Directed Assessment
[2013] ScotIC 052 – 2013
Scotland
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.514798
[2013] ScotIC 053 – 2013
Scotland
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.514805
The first claimant had been severely beaten as he left school. He and his parents also claimed post traumatic stress. They alleged that the school had been negligent in having allowed racial tensions to develop. The claimant was white, and his attackers Asian. The claimants sought disclosure of the school’s disciplinary records unredacted so that the racial origins could be identified. The school, reacted saying that beyond disclosing the names of the attackers, the remaining names were protected by confidence.
Held: Some requests were too wide to satisfy the need for certainty. Others would require specific justification to support the interference with the particular privacy of children.
Nicol J
[2009] EWHC 1140 (QB)
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited – Kenny, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds Magistrates Court, Leeds City Council Admn 5-Dec-2003
In cases involving children, Article 3 provides that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, not the primary consideration.
The court looked at the test for making an interim ASBO: ‘Consideration of whether it is just to . .
Cited – Todd v Crown Prosecution Service; T v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another; Todd v DPP QBD 6-Oct-2003
The defendant had been under 18 at the commencement of proceedings but attained 18 during them. The newspaper was granted leave to refer to him by name upon his becoming 18.
Held: Denying the appeal. The balance between the freedom of the . .
See Also – Webster and Others v Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 5-Feb-2010
The claimant had been severely injured when attacked at school. He was a white youth, and his attackers all Asian. The school had a history of inter-racial tension, and he claimed in negligence, and that they had failed to protect his human right . .
See Also – Webster and Others v The Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 2-Mar-2010
The court considered whether costs should be payable on a standard or indemnity basis. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346752
Application for interim injunctive relief pending the speedy trial of a claim as to what is said to be confidential information in the nature of trade secrets, although that characterisation is disputed by the defendants; and it is that dispute which lies at the heart of this case.
Hodge QC HHJ
[2013] EWHC 3726 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.519660
The complainant has requested details of the amounts that the Cabinet Office has spent on consultancy services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on Section 21 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
FOI 21: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50727899
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621211
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for an updated version of the ‘G-cloud’ dataset and details of its future publication schedule for this dataset. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 22(1) of FOIA in its refusal notice and then subsequently relied on section 21(1) of FOIA in its internal review as an updated version of this dataset had now been published. The complainant disagreed with the application of both of these exemptions, complained about the time it took the Cabinet office to respond to the request, raised concerns about the accuracy of the dataset which had been published and complained that the Cabinet Office had failed, in response to his request, to provide information about the future publication schedule for this dataset. The Commissioner has concluded that sections 22(1) and 21(1) do not apply to the request and that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Cabinet Office did hold any information about the future publication schedule for this dataset at the point the request was submitted and that the complainant’s concerns about the accuracy of the data published are not ones that fall to be considered under section 50 of FOIA.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 21: Complaint upheld FOI 22: Complaint upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50693617
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621301
The complainant submitted a meta-request to the Cabinet Office following on from an earlier request he had submitted to it about the cloud based collaboration tool Slack. The Cabinet Office refused the meta-request on the basis of section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The complainant subsequently made a further request for the reasonable opinion record and the correspondence leading up to it which the Cabinet Office used to engage section 36 to the information in the scope of the meta-request. The Cabinet Office argued that the information in the scope of the further request was itself exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that information falling in the scope of the further request is exempt on the basis of these exemptions and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
FOI 36: Not upheld
[2018] UKICO FS50689205
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.617334
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information it held concerning the transfer of the Stone of Scone to Scotland in 1996. The Cabinet Office responded to the request – outside of the 20 working days required by FOIA – and withheld all of the information falling within the scope. Some 18 months after the request, and during the Commissioner’s investigation of this complaint, the Cabinet Office disclosed the majority of the requested information. In withholding the remainder of the information the Cabinet Office sought to rely on the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) (international relations), 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign), 40(2) (personal data), and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The complainant does not dispute the application of these exemptions but is dissatisfied with the Cabinet Office’s delays in handling his request. The Commissioner has concluded that such delays resulted in the Cabinet Office breaching the procedural requirements of FOIA contained at sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50700072
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621302
The complainant asked the public authority to disclose a record of a conversation that took place between former President of the United States of America, George Bush and former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on 16 April 2004. The public authority withheld the requested information in reliance on the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and 27(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) FOIA.
FOI 27: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50660657
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593657
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of any correspondence between The Prince of Wales and the Prime Minster dating from 2002 about hunting. The Cabinet Office has confirmed that it holds some environmental information falling within the scope of the request but has sought to withhold this on the basis of regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that this information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 13(1). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 13: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0669057
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593823
The complainant has requested information about Nick Clegg’s entitlement to the Public Duties Cost Allowance (‘PDCA’) from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing section 21 (information accessible by other means) and section 35 (formulation/development of government policy). The complainant disputed the Cabinet Office’s use of section 35. The Cabinet Office upheld its use of section 35 following internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35 as its basis for withholding the information to which it has been applied. However, the Cabinet Office contravened its obligations under section 10 (Time for compliance) when it failed to provide a response within a reasonable time having extended the time for compliance in order to consider the balance of public interest test in respect of section 35. No steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 35: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50645838
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593656
The complainant has requested information on the attendance of members at specific Honours, Decorations and Medals committee meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on the exemptions at FOIA sections 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) and 37(1)(b) (Communications with Her Majesty) to refuse the request. In order to ensure compliance with the legislation the Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with the requested information.
FOI 35: Upheld FOI 37: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50677400
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.602477
The complainant has requested information regarding the socioeconomic and educational backgrounds of applicants to the Government’s Fast Track scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to redact part of the disclosed information under section 40(2) and is entitled to withhold some of the information under section 23 and 24 in the alternative. The Commissioner does find, however, that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) by not citing the exemption on which it was relying. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet office to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the Act.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 24: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50662308
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621209
The complainant submitted a request the Cabinet Office seeking a range of data about pension payments and payments made under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. The Cabinet Office responded by stating that it is does not hold any of the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that the Cabinet Office does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50693517
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.617336
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of correspondence and communications between HRH Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, and the Prime Minister, in relation to public roles for the Duke of York’s daughters. The public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding information within the scope of the complainant’s request in reliance on sections 37(2) and 40(5)(b)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 37(2).
FOI 37(2): Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50674879
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593735
The complainant requested information relating to the HSE’s voluntary exit scheme held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office 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
[2018] UKICO fs50755668
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621303
The complainant has requested information in certain PREM files and a CAB file which has not been transferred to the National Archive. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this and cited sections 23 (security services), 37 (correspondence with the Sovereign), 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence). It upheld this at internal review although during the Commissioner’s investigation, it withdrew reliance on section 41. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on sections 23, 37(1)(a) and 40(2) as a basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 37: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50646401
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621300
The complainant has requested Management Information System Online (‘MISO’) information from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing section 43 (commercial interests exemption) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it revised its position and made a disclosure under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 43 as its basis for withholding the information which remains withheld within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
FOI 43: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50639250
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593732
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information about honours offered to the actors Paul Scofield and Peter O’Toole but which they had refused. In relation to Paul Scofield the Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information but sought to withhold this on the basis of section 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. In relation to Peter O’Toole the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information relying on section 37(2) by virtue of section 37(1)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b) to withhold the information it acknowledges holding about Paul Scofield. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Cabinet Office can rely on section 37(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information about Peter O’Toole.
FOI 37: Not upheld
[2018] UKICO FS50686807
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.617333
The complainant has requested a copy of assessments that the Cabinet Office has created of UK journalists. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50716239
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621210
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for access to papers contained in files CAB 185/11, 14 and 16. The Cabinet Office withheld this information on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption.
FOI 23: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50679062
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.602478
The complainant requested copies of correspondence to and from a specific employee of the Cabinet Office which mentions the British Indian Ocean Territory and/or the Chagos Archipelago. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office 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
[2018] UKICO fs50748473
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621212
The complainant has requested a copy of Kent Police’s guidance on dealing with paedophile vigilante groups. Kent Police refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that it was exempt under section 31 (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely upon section 31 to withhold the information. However, she found that it breached section 10 by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50711133
England and Wales
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.617608
The complainant has requested information about unsolved crimes from Kent Police; to date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police 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. She requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50733724
England and Wales
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.617810
The complainant has requested the service and / or disciplinary history of three named officers from Kent Police. Kent Police refused to provide this citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50653930
England and Wales
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.583864
Mr Candy claimed remedies for what he alleged were completed or threatened wrongs in the form of breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) against five defendants, one of whom had filmed the claimant misbehaving whilst intoxicated, and threatened to publish it.
Warby J
[2017] EWHC 373 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Jul-2016
The claimants alleged several torts had been involved in a substantial fraud on them by means of a funding loan. . .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 29-Nov-2016
Application by the Defendants for security for costs. . .
See Also – Holyoake v Candy and Another QBD 24-Jan-2017
The claimant sought to have access to his personal information held by the defendant. The defendant relied upon the legal professional privilege exemption. . .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Feb-2017
Applications for further disclosure on the grounds of collateral waiver. . .
See Also – Candy and Others v Holyoake and Another CA 28-Feb-2017
Appeal against grant of ‘notification injunction’ . .
Cited – Hutcheson (Formerly Known As ‘KGM’) v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 19-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against the refusal of a privacy order, protecting his identity in his claim.
Held: The appeal was refused. That Article 8 was ‘engaged’ was not conclusive of the question whether the claimant enjoyed a reasonable . .
Cited – Candy v Holyoake and Others (No 2) QBD 22-Nov-2017
. .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 21-Dec-2017
. .
Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.578047
The complainant has requested from The National Archives (TNA) a closed extract with TNA’s reference PREM/3/139/11B/1, from the open parent file PREM/3/139/11B – Prime Minister’s Office: Operational Correspondence and Papers. Explosives. Tube Alloys. TNA has withheld this information under section 24(1) (national security), section 26(1)(a) (defence of the British Islands or any colony) and section 27(1)(relations between the United Kingdom and any other state). TNA considers the balance of the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information engages section 24(1) of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner has decided that TNA breached sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the FOIA because it failed to provide the complainant with adequate refusal notices. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 24: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50657106
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.593874
The complainant has requested nine Metropolitan Police files relating to the ‘Nude Murders’. TNA refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(a)-(c), 38 and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 31(1)(a)-(c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 31: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50650734
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.593873
The complainant requested a copy of a closed file. The request was refused by the National Archives (TNA) on the grounds of health and safety (section 38 of FOIA). The Commissioner has found that section 38(1) is engaged and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 38: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50654519
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.583783
The complainant submitted a request to Copeland Borough Council (the Council) for a copy of an agreement between the Mayor and the leader of the Labour group of councillors. The Council responded and explained that it did not hold a copy of the agreement. The complainant disputed this response on two grounds. Firstly, she argued that in her view it was likely that the Council did physically held a copy of the agreement. Secondly, she argued that even if this was not the case, then the Mayor held this agreement on behalf of the Council and therefore the Council can be said to hold it for the purposes of FOIA by virtue of section 3(2)(b) of the legislation. With regard to the first ground of complaint the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the Council did not physically hold a copy of the agreement at the time of the request. With regard to the second ground of complaint, the Commissioner has concluded that the copy of the agreement held by the Mayor is not by held on behalf of the Council. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the Council does not hold a copy of the agreement by virtue of section 3(2)(b) of FOIA.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50713792
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.621219
The complainant made a freedom of information request to The National Archives (TNA) for a full and uncensored version of a TNA file. TNA took 108 working days to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA breached section 17(3) in its handling of the request but she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 17: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50640180
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.583781
The complainant made a request to Denbighshire County Council to inspect information held relating to a particular property. The Council agreed to provide the information requested but only on provision of a fee based on the relevant property search regulations. The Commissioner has investigated the case and has determined that the request was to inspect environmental information and as such the Council was unable to make a charge for the provision of the information by virtue of regulation 8(2)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have made the requested information available for inspection as requested and, in failing to do so, it breached regulation 6(1). The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached the requirements of regulation 6(2)(c).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 8 – Complaint Upheld
[2010] UKICO FER0277170
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.531433
The complainant has requested a copy of a lease agreement between the Homes and Communities Agency, Victoria Quay Estate Limited and Westcourt Real Estate (Europe) Limited and Camper and Nicholsons Marinas Limited. The Homes and Communities Agency provided some of the requested information and withheld other information under the exception for the confidentiality of commercial information, regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Homes and Communities Agency has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld
[2016] UKICO FER0622661
England and Wales
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.572880
The complainant submitted two requests to Sunderland City Council for information regarding funding for business initiatives. The public authority refused the requests, citing section 14(1) of the Act, which applies to vexatious requests. The Commissioner has investigated and found that, on balance, the council was not entitled to refuse the requests under section 14(1). The Commissioner therefore requires the council to either comply with section 1(1) or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld
[2011] UKICO FS50380006
England and Wales
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.531114
The complainant has requested detailed information about payments made to a contractor in respect of works carried out at Weedon churchyard. The complainant requires the costs of the works for a five year period, broken down to reflect individual jobs. The Council has determined that whilst it does hold a contract for groundwork and maintenance, including that carried out at Weedon, it does not hold any information to the detail which the complainant seeks. The Commissioner has determined that Daventry District Council does not hold the information which the complainant has requested. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50641649
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.579751
The complainant requested a copy of legal advice obtained by the FCO. The legal advice concerned the issue of whether the UK Government had discharged any duty of care it owed as trustee of the Southern Rhodesia Widows’ Pension Fund when it handed over the colony of Southern Rhodesia to the Government of Zimbabwe. The FCO claimed that it was exempt from disclosure as section 42 of the Act, which relates to legal professional privilege, was engaged. The FCO further argued that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated the FCO’s application of section 42 and found that the information requested is legal advice, but that privilege was waived when the FCO disclosed large parts of the advice to the complainant and others. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is not engaged, and requires the FCO to disclose the requested information in full to the complainant. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, who have ruled that the appeal should be allowed and the decision overturned.
FOI 17: Upheld
[2007] UKICO FS50120007
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.533038
The complainant made a request to the House of Commons Treasury Committee for access to three files. The House refused to disclose all the information in two of the three files and some of the information in the third file as to disclose the information would infringe parliamentary privilege and is therefore exempt under section 34 of the Act. The House produced a certificate signed by the Speaker of the House of Commons certifying this, production of a certificate under section 34 is conclusive evidence that disclosure would infringe parliamentary privilege and so the Commissioner finds that section 34 (an absolute exemption) is engaged.
FOI 34: Not upheld
[2007] UKICO FS50116013
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.533044
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0054
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270775
[2008] UKIT 2007 – 0106
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270761
[2008] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0047
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266734
[2007] UKIT EA – 2007 – 0028
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266749