Chris Spiropoulos v Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 957 (GRC)
Chris Spiropolous v Information Commissioner
11 September 2024
[2024] UKFTT 814 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the government for information about faxes sent to a court. The government said they didn't have it because it was deleted. A court ruled that the government didn't have to provide the information, as the data was likely gone, and the request was more appropriately handled under court rules for accessing court documents, not freedom of information laws.
Key Facts
- •Appeal under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) against the Information Commissioner's decision.
- •Appellant requested information from Central London County Court regarding fax transmissions.
- •Ministry of Justice (MOJ) responded that it did not hold the requested information; the data would have been destroyed by the time of the response.
- •Appellant argued that the MOJ had not properly investigated and deleted information.
- •Previous appeals involving similar requests for Goldfax logs had been dismissed.
- •The Tribunal considered previous appeals and the Appellant's shifting requests for information.
- •The Tribunal found that the MOJ did not hold the requested information.
Legal Principles
FOIA allows requests for information from public authorities, but not for documents from court files.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, sections 1(1), 32
Civil Procedure Rules govern access to court files; the Tribunal cannot order disclosure of documents from the court file.
Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 5.4B, Practice Direction 5A, 4.2A, 5.4D(1)
The Tribunal conducts a full merits review of the Commissioner's decision, applying the balance of probabilities standard of proof.
Information Commissioner v Malnick and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC), section 58(1) of the 2000 Act
Outcomes
Appeal refused.
The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the MOJ did not hold the requested information at the time of their response. The information sought was not on the court file, and other potential sources were deemed unreliable or exempt from disclosure.