T v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 189 (GRC)
Alistair Allison v The Information Commissioner
28 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 919 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone made many information requests to a school. The school said the requests were annoying (vexatious) and refused them. A judge decided the requests weren't actually that annoying, and ordered the school to answer them.
Key Facts
- •Alistair Allison made multiple Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) requests to the Governing Body of the Castle Church of England Federation (referred to as 'the school').
- •The school refused the requests as vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the school's decision.
- •Allison appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
- •The requests related to staff information, school access protocols, and data protection advisor details.
- •The Tribunal considered the burden on the school, Allison's motive, the value of the requests, and any harassment or distress caused.
Legal Principles
Section 14(1) FOIA's 'vexatious requests' clause requires a high bar, protecting public authority resources from disproportionate FOIA use, but not creating a public interest threshold.
Dransfield ([2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) and [2015] EWCA Civ 454), CP v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 427 (AAC), Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] 2 WLT 808
In determining vexatiousness, consider burden on the public authority, requester's motive, value/serious purpose of the request, and any harassment/distress caused. A holistic approach is necessary, considering all circumstances and the lack of proportionality.
Dransfield (UT and CA)
A request's value is assessed based on the information actually requested, not the requester's intent. The public interest is a factor to be balanced against other considerations.
Dr Yeong-Ah Soh v Information Commissioner and Imperial College London [2016] UKUT 0249 (AAC)
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found the requests were not vexatious. While acknowledging some hallmarks of vexatiousness (multiple requests in quick succession), the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of improper motive, harassment, or significant burden on the school to justify refusal under section 14(1). The value of the requests, though diminishing towards the end, was deemed sufficient to not meet the high threshold of vexatiousness.
The school was ordered to issue a fresh response to the requests, without relying on section 14(1) FOIA.
This is a direct consequence of the Tribunal's finding that the requests were not vexatious and therefore should be processed under standard FOIA procedures.