Mohammed Osman v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 360 (GRC)
Martin Lindsay Adedeji v The Information Commissioner & Anor
4 November 2022
[2022] UKFTT 391 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A man repeatedly asked a doctor's office for information about a past complaint. The judge said his requests were annoying and put too much work on the office, so they didn't have to answer him.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Adedeji appealed the Information Commissioner's decision that the Dicconson Group Practice's refusal to answer his FOIA request was justified under section 14(1) (vexatious requests).
- •The request concerned information about a 2009 consultation with Dr. Hosie where Mr. Adedeji alleges racial abuse.
- •Mr. Adedeji had a long history of complaints and FOIA requests related to this incident, involving various bodies.
- •The Tribunal considered the burden on the practice, Mr. Adedeji's motive, the value of the request, and any harassment or distress caused.
Legal Principles
Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows a public authority to refuse a request if it is vexatious.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
The definition of 'vexatious' considers the burden on the public authority, the requester's motive, the value of the request, and any harassment or distress.
IC v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC); CP v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 427 (AAC); Dransfield [2015] EWCA Civ 454
The Tribunal must determine whether the Commissioner's decision is in accordance with the law.
Section 58 FOIA
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the request vexatious due to the disproportionate burden on the practice considering the long history of requests, the lack of significant public interest beyond Mr. Adedeji's personal grievance, and the lack of objective value in the information sought.