Peter Hayes v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 641 (GRC)
David Hendy v The Information Commissioner & Anor
2 June 2023
[2023] UKFTT 461 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A farmer repeatedly asked the government for data on cow diseases. The government said it was too much work and annoying. The judge said the farmer's requests were important and the government had to provide the information.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Hendy made multiple requests for information from the Animal & Plant Health Agency (APHA) regarding bovine tuberculosis rates in cattle.
- •The requests were initially deemed vexatious by APHA and the Information Commissioner.
- •The Upper Tribunal remitted the case back to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision.
- •The key issue was whether the requests were vexatious under Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).
- •The Tribunal considered whether the cost of compliance exceeded the £600 limit under FOIA Section 12.
- •The Tribunal also assessed the burden on APHA, Mr. Hendy's motives, the value of the information, and any harassment involved.
Legal Principles
Vexatious requests under FOIA Section 14 require a holistic assessment of all circumstances, balancing burden on the authority against the request's justification. A high standard of vexatiousness must be met.
Information Commissioner v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC); Dransfield v The Information Commissioner [2015] EWCA Civ 454; Cabinet Office v ICO and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208
Cost limit under FOIA Section 12: A public authority need not comply if the cost exceeds the prescribed limit (£600). The estimate must be reasonable and only includes determining, locating, retrieving, and extracting information.
Birkett v DEFRA [2011] EWCA Civ 1606; Kirkham v Information Commissioner [2018] UKUT 126 (AAC)
Environmental Information Regulations 2004: Definition of 'environmental information' requires a contextual approach, considering the wider purpose and not just the specific subject matter. A minimal connection with the environment is insufficient.
BEIS v ICO & Henney [2017] EWCA Civ 844; DfT, DVSA and Porsche Cars GB Ltd v ICO and Cieslik [2018] UKUT 127 (AAC)
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal found that FOIA, not EIR, applied. While the initial cost estimate exceeded the limit under FOIA Section 12, after adjustments, it fell below the limit. The Tribunal also determined that Mr. Hendy's requests, while burdensome, did not meet the high threshold for 'vexatiousness' under FOIA Section 14, due to the strong public interest in the information.
Substituted Decision Notice: APHA must issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12 or section 14 of FOIA 2000.
The original decision to refuse the request based on cost and vexatiousness was overturned due to errors in the assessment and consideration of factors.