Adrian Finch v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 908 (GRC)
Fiona Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor
21 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 391 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Fiona Thompson asked the government for information about a tax review. The government refused, saying it was too expensive and would harm its ability to work effectively. An independent judge agreed with the government, saying Thompson's repeated requests were harassing and not in the public interest.
Key Facts
- •Fiona Thompson made three Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests to HM Treasury (HMT) concerning the Independent Loan Charge Review.
- •Request #1 sought communications related to the selection of Sir Amyas Morse to lead the review.
- •Request #2 sought information on HMT's handling of Request #1.
- •Request #3 sought emails and other communications containing specific keywords from senior HMT officials.
- •HMT refused all three requests, citing cost, exemptions under section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), and vexatiousness under section 14 of FOIA.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld HMT's refusals.
- •Thompson appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
Legal Principles
The Tribunal exercises a full merits appellate jurisdiction, giving weight to the Commissioner's decision but making its own findings of fact and applying the law.
Information Commissioner v Malnick [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)
Section 36 FOIA: Information is exempt if disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, including inhibiting free and frank advice or exchange of views. The qualified person's opinion (Minister of the Crown for government departments) is given weight but not conclusive; the Tribunal assesses reasonableness objectively.
FOIA 2000, s.36; Information Commissioner v Malnick [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)
Section 14 FOIA: A public authority is not obliged to comply with a vexatious request. Factors considered include burden on the public authority, requester's motive, value/purpose of the request, and harassment/distress. The standard for vexatiousness is high.
FOIA 2000, s.14; Information Commissioner v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC); Dransfield v Information Commissioner [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed for Request #1.
The Tribunal found the qualified person's opinion (that disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs) reasonable under section 36 FOIA. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Appeal dismissed for Request #2.
The Tribunal found the request vexatious under section 14 FOIA, due to the burden on HMT, lack of serious value or purpose, and harassing effect of repeated requests about requests.
Appeal dismissed for Request #3.
The Tribunal found the request vexatious under section 14 FOIA, due to burden on HMT, lack of serious value or purpose, and harassing effect of repeated and speculative monitoring of senior civil servants' communications.