Simon James Boyce v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 44 (GRC)
Dmitri Shvorob v The Information Commissioner
24 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 941 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A blogger made many requests for information from the council. The council said the requests were annoying and unreasonable. The court decided the requests were okay because the blogger was trying to get information for the public and wasn’t being mean. The council has to look at the requests again.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by Dmitri Shvorob against the Information Commissioner's upholding of London Borough of Bexley's refusal of multiple information requests.
- •Requests made between July 2023 and February 2024, concerning road safety, ULEZ, and procurement.
- •Public Authority refused requests based on vexatiousness (FOIA) and manifest unreasonableness (EIR).
- •Appellant is associated with a local blog, 'Bexley Council is Bonkers'.
- •Tribunal considered 87 previous requests made by the Appellant over an 18-month period.
- •Tribunal found the Appellant's actions to be in the public interest.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'vexatious' under FOIA and 'manifestly unreasonable' under EIR.
Dransfield v The Information Commissioner and Devon CC [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Factors to consider when determining vexatiousness/manifest unreasonableness: burden on Public Authority, requester's motive, value/serious purpose of request, harassment/distress caused.
Dransfield v The Information Commissioner and Devon CC [2015] EWCA Civ 454
All circumstances, including previous requests, must be considered when assessing vexatiousness/manifest unreasonableness.
Dransfield v The Information Commissioner and Devon CC [2015] EWCA Civ 454
A request, not the requester, is considered vexatious/manifestly unreasonable.
FOIA section 14(1)
Public authorities must consider the public interest in disclosure versus maintaining the exception when determining refusal of requests under EIR.
EIR regulation 12(1)(b)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Tribunal found that the requests were not vexatious or manifestly unreasonable, considering the appellant's public interest motive, the generally non-burdensome nature of the requests (except the ULEZ request which the Tribunal considered burdensome but not manifestly unreasonable), and the lack of evidence of harassment or distress caused to staff.
Substituted decision notice issued.
The Public Authority must reconsider the requests and issue a fresh decision that does not rely on sections 14 FOIA or regulation 12(4)(b) EIR.