Stephen John Gullick v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 985 (GRC)
Gerry Woodhouse v Information Commissioner & Anor
20 August 2024
[2024] UKFTT 751 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone made a big information request to a small town council. The Information Commissioner said the council didn't have the information. The person who made the request appealed, but the court agreed with the Information Commissioner. The case is about who has to prove what when dealing with information requests and protecting personal information.
Key Facts
- •Gerry Woodhouse appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner regarding a 15-part Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request to Potto Parish Council.
- •The request concerned a Public Interest Report (PIR) and other matters.
- •The Commissioner found the council disclosed all relevant information for parts 5, 7, and 14, but wrongly applied an exemption for part 6 and breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) by failing to issue a refusal notice timely.
- •The appellant alleged the council's responses were deceitful, misleading, and evasive.
- •The council argued it did not hold the requested information in parts 5, 7, and 14, due to differing interpretations of legal and factual positions.
- •The council was joined as a respondent to the appeal but did not participate.
- •A tense relationship existed between the appellant and the council, involving numerous previous FOIA requests and complaints.
- •The appeal focused on whether the council held the requested information, not on compliance with local government law.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) – Sections 10(1), 17(1), 31, 40(5B)
FOIA 2000
Data Protection Act 2018 – Schedule 1, Parts 1 to 3
DPA 2018
Balance of probabilities test in determining whether information is held.
Information Commissioner's Decision
Local Government Act 1972 and Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 – relevance to information requests.
Appellant's arguments, Commissioner's response
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found no evidence to overturn the Commissioner's decision that the council did not hold the information requested in parts 5, 7, and 14, based on the balance of probabilities. Regarding part 6, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's application of section 40(5B) FOIA to protect personal data.