Article 39 v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 733 (GRC)
Michelle Currie v The Information Commissioner & Anor
23 March 2023
[2023] UKFTT 311 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the government for info about a school competition. The government hid some things, saying it would hurt fair competition and honest advice. A judge said some info had to be released, but other parts could stay secret because releasing them would be more harmful.
Key Facts
- •Michelle Currie (Appellant), CEO of Milton Keynes Education Trust (MKET), requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) regarding a free school competition.
- •The request covered various documents related to the competition, including emails, scoring sheets, and applications.
- •The DfE withheld some information citing exemptions under sections 36(2)(b) and (c) and 43(2) of the FOIA.
- •The Information Commissioner's decision was appealed by the Appellant.
- •The appeal was heard on the papers.
Legal Principles
Right to information under FOIA
FOIA section 1(1)
Public interest test for exempt information
FOIA section 2(2)
Exemption for information likely to inhibit free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views
FOIA section 36(2)(b)
Exemption for information likely to prejudice commercial interests
FOIA section 43(2)
Qualified person's opinion must be reasonable
Guardian Newspapers Ltd and Brooke v IC
Broad interpretation of 'commercial interests'
Student Loans Company v IC
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Tribunal found that some information should be disclosed while upholding the exemptions for other information based on the balance of public interest.
Section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) engaged for certain information.
Disclosure would likely inhibit frank advice and exchange of views, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the interest in disclosure.
Section 43(2) engaged for other information.
Disclosure would likely prejudice the commercial interests of unsuccessful applicants, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the interest in disclosure.
Specific information ordered to be disclosed.
This information (headings and names) did not engage sections 36(2) or 43(2).