Paul Bentley v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 18 (GRC)
Mark Tully v The Information Commissioner
18 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 312 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked HM Treasury for information about meetings on the Loan Charge, including details about *why* previous requests were refused. The government said it was too much work. The court agreed that some of the request was too much work (vexatious), but that other parts were reasonable and should be answered.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision that HM Treasury was entitled to refuse a Freedom of Information request under section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- •The request concerned information relating to meetings about the Loan Charge, including metadata on the handling of previous FOI requests.
- •The request was comprised of five parts: parts 1-3 were simple counting exercises, while parts 4 and 5 sought information on the rationale behind previous refusals.
- •HM Treasury argued disproportionate effort in responding to the request, particularly parts 4 and 5.
Legal Principles
Section 14(1) of the FOIA allows refusal of vexatious requests. The test is whether the request is vexatious, not the requester.
Dransfield ([2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) and [2015] EWCA Civ 454), CP v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 427 (AAC)
Vexatiousness involves a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of FOIA; a holistic approach considering burden, motive, value/serious purpose, and harassment/distress is required.
Dransfield and CP v Information Commissioner
Public interest is a factor to be balanced against resource implications and other relevant factors; it's not a trump card.
Dransfield
FOIA creates a prima facie right to disclosure, balanced against exemptions and qualifications.
Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] 2 WLT 808
Section 14 should not be a catch-all exemption, avoiding consideration of other exemptions.
None explicitly stated, but inferred from discussion of Section 14's purpose.
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed in part.
Requests 4 and 5 (seeking rationale for previous refusals and metadata) were deemed vexatious due to disproportionate burden compared to limited value. Requests 1-3 (simple counting exercises) were not vexatious.
Substitute decision notice issued.
HM Treasury must provide information requested in requests 1-3 within 42 days.