Stephen John Gullick v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 985 (GRC)
Robert Cooper v The Information Commissioner
10 September 2024
[2024] UKFTT 813 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A man wanted to see documents about how much councillors get paid. The council and the Information Commissioner said no, but the court said the public has a right to know, because it's about public money and how it is spent. The council has to release the information.
Key Facts
- •Robert Cooper requested submissions made to the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) regarding councillor allowances from Cumberland Council.
- •The Council refused the request under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 41(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- •The Information Commissioner (IC) upheld the Council's refusal, finding that section 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition of free and frank exchange of views) applied.
- •Cooper appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The withheld information consisted of submissions from two main political parties to the IRP.
Legal Principles
Section 36 FOIA: Information likely to inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation is exempt, subject to a public interest test.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 41 FOIA: Information obtained in confidence and whose disclosure would constitute a breach of confidence is exempt. This is an absolute exemption, but the public interest can be a defence.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Public Interest Test under Section 36 FOIA: The Tribunal must balance the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosure. The QP's opinion is given weight, but not determinative.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 2(2)(b); Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner [2016] EWCA Civ 758
Breach of Confidence: Three elements are required: information with the quality of confidence, imparted in circumstances implying an obligation of confidence, and unauthorised use to the detriment of the party communicating it.
Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Limited [1968] FSR 415
Outcomes
The Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal agreed that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was engaged but found that the public interest favoured disclosure. The Tribunal found the arguments for disclosure, focusing on transparency and accountability in setting councillor allowances, outweighed the arguments for non-disclosure. The Tribunal also found that section 41 did not apply.
Similar Cases
Steven Thomas v Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 1075 (GRC)
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 427 (GRC)
Catherine Louise Holden v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 764 (GRC)
Dr Linda Derrick v Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 428 (GRC)