Kate Sharp v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 381 (GRC)
Andrew Herman v Information Commissioner
20 February 2024
[2024] UKFTT 132 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A man asked the council for information about a report on a planning mistake. The council said no, claiming his request was unreasonable. A judge disagreed, saying the council was unreasonable and ordered them to release the information because the public has a right to know about how the council handled the planning case.
Key Facts
- •Andrew Herman appealed an Information Commissioner's Decision Notice (DN) regarding Milton Keynes Council's (MKCC) refusal to disclose information.
- •The request concerned emails and notes relating to an independent expert report (Dorfman report) commissioned following mishandling of a planning application.
- •MKCC initially disclosed some information but withheld others under EIR exceptions (personal data, draft material, interests of the provider).
- •MKCC argued the request was 'manifestly unreasonable' under EIR regulation 12(4)(b).
- •The appeal considered whether MKCC's refusal was justified and the timeliness of its responses.
- •The appellant had been involved in a judicial review related to the planning application and had prior communications with MKCC's legal department about the Dorfman report.
- •The request was initially informal, aiming for common law disclosure, but transitioned to a statutory request under EIR/FOIA.
Legal Principles
The tests for 'vexatious' (FOIA s14(1)) and 'manifestly unreasonable' (EIR) are essentially similar and represent a high threshold.
Dransfield v IC and Devon CC, Craven v IC and DECC [2015] EWCA Civ 454
In assessing 'manifestly unreasonable', factors such as burden, purpose, motive, and harassment should be considered.
Dransfield v IC and Devon CC, Craven v IC and DECC [2015] EWCA Civ 454
For refusing disclosure of environmental information on unreasonableness grounds, a public authority must show the interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the interest in disclosure (EIR regulation 12).
Environmental Information Regulations 2004, Regulation 12
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
MKCC's refusal was based on an unreasonable interpretation of the request, failing to consider its context and the substantial public interest in disclosure. The Council's justification for 'manifestly unreasonable' was flawed, focusing on the appellant's quick response rather than the substance of the request. The exceptions claimed were not properly explored.
Substituted Decision Notice: Milton Keynes Council to disclose Mr Dorfman’s emails and notes relating to the three named officers within 35 days.
The Tribunal found the Council's handling of the request unreasonable and that the public interest in disclosure outweighed any exceptions claimed.
Similar Cases
Donna Clarke v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 520 (GRC)
Paul Cawthorne v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 978 (GRC)
Mark Jopling Obo Udney Park Playing Fields Trust Limited v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 163 (GRC)
Kate Sharp v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 290 (GRC)