Paul Cawthorne v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 978 (GRC)
Bristol City Council v The Information Commissioner & Anor
9 September 2024
[2024] UKFTT 812 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A community group repeatedly asked a council for information. The council said it was too many requests. The Information Commissioner disagreed. A judge agreed with the council, saying while individual requests were fine, the sheer number over time was unreasonable and put too much burden on the council.
Key Facts
- •Bristol City Council (Council) refused information requests from Helen Powell (acting for We Love Stoke Lodge, WLSL) under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests).
- •The Information Commissioner (Commissioner) overturned the Council's decision.
- •The Council appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
- •The requests related to the condition of walkways and works on a pavilion at Stoke Lodge Playing Fields, amid a long-running dispute over access.
- •The Tribunal considered a significant number of previous information requests and complaints related to the Playing Fields.
- •The Tribunal considered the cumulative burden on the Council.
Legal Principles
A public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information if the request is manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b) EIR).
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In assessing 'manifestly unreasonable' requests, considerations similar to those for 'vexatious' requests under FOIA apply.
Craven v Information Commissioner & DECC [2012] UKUT 442 (AAC)
Assessing vexatiousness involves considering burden, requester's motive, request's value/purpose, and harassment/distress to staff (but not as a checklist).
Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
The public interest balance must be assessed as it stood at the time of the Council's decision.
Montague v Information Commissioner and the Department for International Trade [2022] UKUT 104 (AAC)
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal found the requests were manifestly unreasonable due to the cumulative burden on the Council from numerous similar requests over a sustained period, despite the individual requests being reasonable in isolation. The public interest in avoiding this disproportionate burden outweighed the public interest in disclosure.