Kudeep Singh v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 1002 (GRC)
Dr Chrisostomos Prodromou v The Information Commissioner
23 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 483 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A researcher asked the University for information about PhD funding. The University and the Information Commissioner said his request was 'vexatious' (annoying and pointless). The court disagreed, saying the request wasn't part of a separate complaint and wasn't overly burdensome. The University must now answer his request.
Key Facts
- •Dr Chrisostomos Prodromou appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner that the University of Sussex was entitled to refuse his FOIA request under section 14 (vexatious requests).
- •Prodromou's request sought information on University policy and guidelines regarding PhD support for new principal investigators.
- •The University refused the request, citing vexatiousness.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the University's refusal.
- •The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision was not in accordance with the law.
Legal Principles
Section 14 FOIA's purpose is to protect public authority resources from disproportionate FOIA use, requiring a high standard of 'vexatiousness'.
Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) and [2015] EWCA Civ 454; CP v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 427 (AAC)
The test is whether the request is vexatious, not the requester. 'Vexatious' carries its ordinary meaning within the FOIA context.
Dransfield
Relevant factors in determining vexatiousness include: burden on the public authority; requester's motive; value/serious purpose of the request; harassment or distress caused.
Dransfield
The history of dealings between the requester and the authority, including the number, breadth, pattern, and duration of previous requests, is relevant.
Dransfield
A holistic approach is needed, considering manifest unreasonableness, irresponsibility, and lack of proportionality.
Dransfield
Public interest is a factor to be balanced against resource implications and other relevant factors.
Dransfield
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner misinterpreted Dr Prodromou's statements regarding his motive. The request was not linked to his grievance and did not represent a significant burden on the University. There was no evidence of inappropriate motive, distress, or harassment. The lack of wider public interest did not render the request vexatious.
Substitute decision notice: The University must provide Dr Prodromou with a fresh response to his request, not relying on section 14 FOIA.
The Tribunal concluded that the exemption in section 14 did not apply.