Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Daniel Edwards v The Information Commissioner

1 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 571 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the government for information about the tax effects of a specific tax rule. The government refused, saying it was part of ongoing policy discussions. An independent reviewer agreed with the government. A court also agreed, saying releasing the information would harm the policy-making process. The fact that a similar request was approved in the past didn't matter.

Key Facts

  • •Daniel Edwards appealed a decision notice (DN) from the Information Commissioner upholding HM Treasury's (HMT) refusal to disclose information on the impact of the income tax personal allowance taper on net tax revenue.
  • •HMT relied on FOIA section 35(1)(a) (formulation/development of government policy) and section 29(1)(a) (prejudice to economic interests).
  • •The Commissioner upheld section 35(1)(a), finding the information related to live policy and the public interest favored non-disclosure.
  • •The Appellant argued that the policy was not 'live' and cited a previous decision ordering disclosure of similar information.
  • •The Tribunal had access to the withheld information.

Legal Principles

Public authorities have a general duty to disclose information under FOIA, subject to exemptions.

FOIA section 1

Information relating to the formulation or development of government policy is exempt under FOIA section 35(1)(a).

FOIA section 35(1)(a)

Section 35(1)(a) is subject to a public interest balance; the material time is when the request is responded to.

DHSC v IC [2020] UKUT 299; Montague v Information Commissioner & Department of International Trade [2022] UKUT 104 (AAC)

Public interest factors against disclosure include maintaining a 'safe space' for policy discussions and avoiding a chilling effect.

Commissioner's guidance on section 35; Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v IC and Friends of the Earth EA/2007/0072

Previous decision notices are not binding.

Commissioner's Response

Outcomes

The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found no error of law in the Commissioner's decision or the exercise of his discretion. They accepted the Commissioner's reasoning, agreeing that the public interest favored maintaining the exemption under section 35(1)(a).

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.