Sid Ryan v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 113 (GRC)
Kirsty Read v The Information Commissioner
3 October 2023
[2023] UKFTT 817 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Kirsty asked the NHS for information multiple times. The government said her requests were annoying and not a proper use of the law, and the court agreed. Some of what she asked for was considered her own private information anyway.
Key Facts
- •Kirsty Read (Appellant) appealed two Information Commissioner (Commissioner) decisions regarding information requests to the NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board (Board).
- •The First Request (May 2021) sought information about legal advice paid for with public funds, actions taken regarding greetings cards sent to Board staff containing quotes from Appellant's correspondence, and staff photograph usage on the website.
- •The Second Request (September 2021) requested information related to the greetings cards for the period March 2018 to April 2020.
- •The Commissioner dismissed both requests as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), and deemed some information in the First Request as the Appellant's personal data under section 40(1) of FOIA.
- •The Appeals were heard on the papers without a hearing.
Legal Principles
Right of access to information held by public authorities
FOIA
Vexatious requests exemption
FOIA
Personal data exemption
FOIA
Legal professional privilege exemption
FOIA
Definition of 'vexatious' in FOIA
Dransfield Case
Legal professional privilege requirements
Three Rivers Case
Outcomes
Both appeals dismissed
The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA, constituting an inappropriate use of the FOIA process. The Tribunal also agreed that certain information in the First Request was the Appellant's personal data, covered by the absolute exemption in section 40(1) of FOIA.