Bristol City Council v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 812 (GRC)
Albert Edward Poole v The Information Commissioner
14 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 504 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the government for information about the sale of some playing fields. The government said the request was unreasonable. A judge decided the request was reasonable and ordered the government to answer the questions.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Poole appealed a Decision Notice (DN) issued by the Information Commissioner (IC) regarding his request for environmental information from the Department for Education (DfE).
- •The request, initially 11 questions, was reduced to 3 questions concerning the sale of playing fields.
- •The DfE refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR (manifestly unreasonable request).
- •The IC upheld the DfE's refusal.
- •The appeal was decided on the papers without a hearing.
- •Mr. Poole's request was linked to other requests by him and others in the Limes Land Protection Group (LLPG).
- •The Tribunal considered whether the request was 'manifestly unreasonable' under EIR and 'vexatious' under FOIA.
Legal Principles
A public authority must make environmental information available on request (subject to exceptions).
Regulation 5(1) EIR
A public authority may refuse information if the request is 'manifestly unreasonable' and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs disclosure.
Regulation 12(1)(a), (b) and (4)(b) EIR
'Manifestly unreasonable' involves considerations similar to those for 'vexatious' requests under FOIA.
Craven v Information Commissioner and DECC [2012] UKUT 442 (AAC) and Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
The Tribunal exercises a full merits appellate jurisdiction in such appeals.
IC v Malnick and ACOBA [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)
The Tribunal must consider whether the DN is not in accordance with the law or if the IC should have exercised a discretion differently.
Section 58 FOIA
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal found that Mr. Poole's request (questions 1, 2, and 3) was not manifestly unreasonable, considering the request's value, the lack of concerted action, and the overall context.
Substituted Decision Notice: Mr. Poole’s request is not manifestly unreasonable.
The DfE must respond to questions 1, 2, and 3 of the request without relying on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) EIR.