Bristol City Council v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 812 (GRC)
Paul Cawthorne v Information Commissioner
4 November 2024
[2024] UKFTT 978 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone wanted information about pollution from a landfill. The council refused, saying the request was unreasonable because of many past requests. A judge decided the council hadn't proved the request was unreasonable and ordered them to give the information, as the public's right to know about pollution is important.
Key Facts
- •Paul Cawthorne appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner that Telford & Wrekin Council could withhold information under EIR 2004 reg 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request).
- •The information requested related to chemical test results from the Stoneyhill landfill site.
- •The Council argued the request was manifestly unreasonable due to the volume and persistence of Cawthorne's previous requests.
- •Cawthorne argued there was significant public interest in the information due to concerns about chemical contamination.
- •The Tribunal conducted a full merits review of the Commissioner's decision.
Legal Principles
The meaning of 'manifestly unreasonable' under EIR 2004 reg 12(4)(b) is the same as 'vexatious' under FOIA 2000 s14(1).
Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council and Craven v Information Commissioner and DECC [2015] EWCA Civ 454
When assessing 'vexatiousness', consider: burden on the public authority, requester's motive, value/serious purpose of the request, and any harassment or distress caused.
Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Exceptions under EIR 2004 reg 12 are interpreted restrictively; the threshold for non-disclosure is high.
Highways England Company Ltd v Information Commissioner [2019] AACR 17
A presumption in favour of disclosure applies under EIR 2004 reg 12(2).
Vesco v Information Commissioner (SGIA/44/2019)
The public interest balance is assessed at the date of the original refusal.
R (Evans) v Attorney-General [2015] UKSC AC 1787
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the Council had not established that Cawthorne's request was manifestly unreasonable. The burden of proof was on the Council to demonstrate the exception applied, and they failed to provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal considered the public interest in disclosure outweighed any concerns about burden on resources.
The Information Commissioner's decision was set aside.
The Commissioner's decision was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found that the Council was not entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(4)(b).
Telford & Wrekin Council was ordered to provide the requested information (questions 1, 3, and 4) within 35 days.
The Tribunal found the request was not manifestly unreasonable and that the public interest favored disclosure.