Ian Abbott v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 478 (GRC)
Hugh Brown v The Information Commissioner & Anor
25 September 2024
[2024] UKFTT 857 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked a council for legal advice and cost info on a court case. The council refused, saying it's private. A higher court agreed that the advice was private because what the deputy leader said publicly didn't give away the whole legal strategy. The public interest in keeping legal advice confidential won out over the public's right to know.
Key Facts
- •Hugh Brown (Appellant) requested information from London Borough of Harrow (Council) regarding legal advice and costs related to a ULEZ legal challenge.
- •The Council withheld information citing Legal Professional Privilege (LPP).
- •The Information Commissioner (IC) upheld the Council's decision, finding the information to be protected by LPP and that disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice.
- •The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, arguing that the Deputy Leader's public statement waived LPP.
- •The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the IC and Council that the public interest favored maintaining LPP.
Legal Principles
Legal Professional Privilege (LPP)
Various case laws cited, including Derby and Co. Ltd and Others v Weldon v Others (No. 10 ([1991] WLR 660), DCLG v IC [2012] UKUT 103 (AAC), DBERR v O’Brien v IC [2009] EWHC 164 QB, Corderoy and Ahmed v Information Commissioner, A-G and Cabinet Office [2017] UKUT 495 (AAC)
Environmental Information Regulations 2006 (EIR) - Regulation 12(5)(b)
Environmental Information Regulations 2006
Public Interest Test under EIR
Environmental Information Regulations 2006, DBERR v O’Brien v IC [2009] EWHC 164 QB
Waiver of Legal Professional Privilege
Derby and Co. Ltd and Others v Weldon v Others (No. 10 ([1991] WLR 660), Mersey Tunnel Users Association v Information Commissioner and Merseytravel (EA/2007/0052)
Outcomes
Appeal Dismissed
The Tribunal found that the Deputy Leader's statement did not disclose the substance of the legal advice, therefore LPP was not waived. The public interest in maintaining LPP outweighed the public interest in disclosure.