Michelle Currie v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 311 (GRC)
Andrew Challinor v The Information Commissioner
24 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 328 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the government for emails and payment details related to a report on a failed gambling company. The government refused, citing potential harm to the report's integrity and a lawyer's business. A court partially agreed, saying the emails should be released but the payment details could stay secret. The court considered the public interest in transparency versus the risks of hurting the report's process and the lawyer's business.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision notice regarding the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) withholding of information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •Request for correspondence with and payment to Malcolm Sheehan QC concerning the Football Index review.
- •DCMS relied on sections 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA to withhold information.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld DCMS's decision.
- •Appellant argued that public interest favored disclosure, citing the significant losses incurred by Football Index customers and concerns about the review's independence.
Legal Principles
Section 36(2)(c) FOIA: Information is exempt if disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. A qualified person's opinion is considered but not conclusive; the tribunal assesses its reasonableness.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 43(2) FOIA: Information is exempt if disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of any person. A causative link between disclosure and prejudice must be shown.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Public interest test: When exemptions under FOIA are claimed, a public interest balancing test must be applied, weighing the harm of disclosure against the benefits. The tribunal must identify and examine both the potential harm and benefits of disclosure.
FOIA Section 2(2)(b), APPGER case
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The tribunal found that the qualified person's opinion regarding section 36(2)(c) was reasonable, but that the public interest favoured disclosure of the correspondence given the reduced need for a 'safe space' due to the time elapsed since the review's completion. Regarding section 43(2), the tribunal found that while disclosure of the payment amount would likely prejudice Mr. Sheehan's commercial interests, the limited public interest in knowing this specific fee was outweighed by the commercial interest.
Similar Cases
Fiona Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 391 (GRC)
The Department of Health and Social Care v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 261 (GRC)
Robert Cooper v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 813 (GRC)
Adnan Ali v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 371 (GRC)