Alistair Allison v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 919 (GRC)
Julie Bond v The Information Commissioner
2 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 265 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked a school trust for information about staff appointments. The trust said the request was annoying and harassing, but a court ruled that the request was reasonable and the trust has to answer it.
Key Facts
- •Appeal under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) against the Information Commissioner's decision notice.
- •Appellant (Julie Bond) requested information from Endeavour Learning Trust about all appointments made to various roles within the Trust.
- •The Trust initially claimed the request was too costly and time-consuming, then claimed it was vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA due to the Appellant's perceived harassing conduct and the risk to employee privacy.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the Trust's claim that the request was vexatious.
- •The Appellant argued the Commissioner supported the Trust's assertion of vexatiousness without sufficient justification and that the Trust's handling of the request was poor.
Legal Principles
Definition of a 'vexatious' request under section 14 FOIA.
Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) and Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Factors to consider when determining vexatiousness: burden on public authority, requester's motive, value/serious purpose of the request, and harassment/distress to staff.
Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
FOIA is 'motive blind' and 'applicant blind', but the underlying rationale/justification for a request is relevant to determining vexatiousness.
Case Law discussed in sections 37-40
Proportionality is key when assessing vexatiousness.
Case Law discussed in sections 43
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Tribunal found the Trust's claim of vexatiousness was unsubstantiated. The Appellant's request, while potentially burdensome, was deemed proportionate and had a legitimate purpose. The Tribunal did not find evidence of harassing or offensive conduct by the Appellant, attributing the lengthy exchange to the Trust's obstructive handling of the request.
Substituted Decision Notice issued.
The Tribunal directed the Trust to issue a fresh response to the request without relying on section 14(1) FOIA.