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.