Thomas Bright v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 256 (GRC)
Philippe Benfell v The Information Commissioner
18 October 2023
[2023] UKFTT 877 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A man repeatedly requested information from the council, making angry and unfounded accusations. The council and the Information Commissioner said his requests were harassing and refused to answer them. A judge agreed, saying his behavior was unreasonable and not a legitimate use of the Freedom of Information Act.
Key Facts
- •Philippe Benfell appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner (ICO) upholding Brighton & Hove City Council's refusal to disclose information under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), citing the request as vexatious.
- •Benfell's request, spanning nine pages and 13 questions, concerned Court Farm and contained unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and dishonesty against the Council and its staff.
- •The Council argued the request was vexatious due to its length, hostile tone, repeated nature over several years, and unsubstantiated allegations, causing a disproportionate burden on its resources and distress to staff.
- •The ICO agreed with the Council, citing the request's length, hostile tone, and history of previous communications as evidence of vexatiousness.
Legal Principles
A public authority is not obliged to comply with a FOIA request if it is vexatious (Section 14(1) FOIA).
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Vexatious requests are those causing disproportionate disruption, irritation, or distress without proper justification. Consideration should be given to the burden on resources, the requester's motive, the value of the request, and any harassment or distress caused.
Information Commissioner's guidance on section 14(1) FOIA; Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454
The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, proportionately to the importance and complexity of the issues, and avoiding unnecessary delay (Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 2).
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the request to be vexatious, considering the request's length, hostile tone, repeated nature, unsubstantiated allegations, disproportionate burden on resources, and harassment/distress caused to council staff. The Tribunal deemed the request lacked a genuine public interest, and constituted an unreasonable and obsessive persistence in pursuing a largely personal grievance.