David Bennet v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 1031 (GRC)
East West Railway Company Limited v The Information Commissioner & Anor
5 October 2023
[2023] UKFTT 821 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company appealed a decision about information requests related to a new railway line. The judge said one request was fair, the others weren't proper information requests. The company now has to answer the fair request.
Key Facts
- •East West Railway Company Limited (Appellant) appealed the Information Commissioner's (Commissioner) decision regarding three information requests from Cambridge Approaches Limited (Second Respondent).
- •The requests related to the Oxford-Cambridge railway line project.
- •The First Request sought specific information underpinning the Appellant's conclusions in a consultation document.
- •The Second and Third Requests were not considered to be information requests but correspondence expressing concerns about the project and consultation process.
- •The Appellant argued that all three requests were manifestly unreasonable due to the burden of compliance.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'environmental information' under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR)
Regulation 2(1) EIR, Case C-316/01 Glawischnig, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v The Information Commissioner and Alex Henney [2017] EWCA Civ 844
'Manifestly unreasonable' under EIR is equivalent to 'vexatious' under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Craven v Information Commissioner and Department for Energy and Climate Change [2012] UKUT 442, Dransfield v Information Commissioner and Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Assessment of 'vexatious' requests under FOIA considers burden, motive, value/purpose, and harassment/distress.
Dransfield v Information Commissioner and Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454, CP v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 427
Public authorities have a duty to progressively make environmental information available under EIR.
Regulation 4(1) EIR
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The First Request was not manifestly unreasonable; the burden of compliance was not excessive considering the Appellant's existing duties to publish the information and the value of the information to the public. The Second and Third Requests were not considered information requests under EIR or FOIA.
Substituted Decision Notice issued.
The Appellant must reconsider its analysis of the First Request and make a fresh response within 35 days, confirming if further information is held and disclosing it subject to redactions.