James Coombs v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 712 (GRC)
James Coombs v Information Commissioner & Anor
7 March 2023
[2023] UKFTT 264 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone wanted school test results. The school said releasing them would hurt their business because it would make it easier to cheat on the tests. The judge agreed that the school's business interests were more important than giving the results to the person who asked.
Key Facts
- •James Coombs made a FOIA request to the University of Cambridge for raw and standardised 11-plus test results from 2016-2019.
- •The request followed a previous case (Coombs No. 2) where similar information was deemed exempt under s.43(2) FOIA due to commercial sensitivity.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the University's refusal to disclose the raw data, citing s.43(2) FOIA and the public interest.
- •Coombs appealed, arguing that new information and events had changed the circumstances and public interest balance.
- •The University argued the request was vexatious and a re-run of previous appeals.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) - Section 1(1): Right to request information from a public authority.
FOIA
FOIA - Section 2(2)(b): Exemption for 'exempt information' if public interest in maintaining exemption outweighs public interest in disclosure.
FOIA
FOIA - Section 43(2): Qualified exemption for information that would prejudice commercial interests.
FOIA
Public interest test under FOIA: Requires balancing the harm of disclosure against the benefits of disclosure.
APPGER v Information Commissioner & FCO [2013] UKUT 0560 (AAC)
FOIA - Section 14: Public authority not obliged to comply with vexatious or repeated requests.
FOIA
Definition of 'vexatious' under FOIA: Manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, and improper use of FOIA procedure.
Information Commissioner v Devon CC and Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
GDPR Article 5(1)(a): Data processing must be lawful, fair, and transparent.
GDPR
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the exemption under s.43(2) FOIA was engaged because disclosing the raw test data would likely prejudice the University's commercial interests by undermining its tests' 'tutor-resistant' USP.
Public interest in maintaining exemption outweighs public interest in disclosure.
The Tribunal balanced the public interest in transparency and objective assessment of 11+ tests against the commercial harm to the University. It found that the potential benefits of disclosure did not outweigh the likely commercial harm.