Anthony Myles v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 768 (GRC)
Denis Goodwin v The Information Commissioner & Anor
11 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 487 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A man repeatedly asked the city council for information about social worker complaints. The council said his requests were annoying. A judge disagreed, saying the man had good reasons and wasn't being unreasonable. The council has to give him the information.
Key Facts
- •Denis Goodwin appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner upholding Liverpool City Council's refusal of his FOIA request as vexatious.
- •The request sought information on the number of social workers involved in complaints over five years.
- •The Council and Commissioner argued the request was vexatious due to Goodwin's previous requests and perceived motive.
- •Goodwin argued his requests had a serious purpose, relating to systemic failures in adult social care and his mother's treatment.
- •Goodwin had made 15 FOIA requests over 20 months, some refused, some answered easily, and some requiring minimal work.
Legal Principles
A request is vexatious if it is a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of a formal procedure.
Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
Factors to consider when assessing vexatiousness include the burden on the public authority, the requester's motive, the value of the request, and harassment or distress to staff.
Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
FOIA is 'motive blind' and 'applicant blind', but the underlying rationale for a request is relevant to vexatiousness.
Case Law and Tribunal reasoning
A request can have value or serious purpose while serving a private interest.
Case Law
Harassment or distress to staff is not a prerequisite for a finding of vexatiousness.
Case Law and Tribunal Reasoning
Vexatiousness by drift involves a shift from a central issue to increasingly remote satellite issues.
Peter Shaw vs IC and Arts Council England EA/2019/0304
Outcomes
The Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal found the previous requests were not burdensome, the appellant's motive was to investigate systemic failures, and there was no evidence of harassment or distress. The request was considered to have serious purpose and value; the burden on the council was not disproportionate.