Anthony Myles v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 768 (GRC)
Simon James Boyce v The Information Commissioner
22 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 44 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A man repeatedly requested information from his council about a damaged bin. The council said his requests were annoying and refused them. A judge agreed about the first set of requests but said the second set of requests about security camera footage were reasonable and should be answered by the council.
Key Facts
- •Simon Boyce appealed two Information Commissioner's (IC) decisions upholding Hertsmere Borough Council's refusal of his FOI requests under s14(1) FOIA (vexatious requests).
- •The First Request sought information on damaged bins over five years.
- •The Second Request asked about CCTV footage from waste collection lorries and the number of bins replaced due to staff damage.
- •The Council initially refused the requests based on s12 FOIA (cost of compliance), then s14(1) FOIA.
- •Boyce argued the requests weren't vexatious and the Council provided misleading information to the IC.
- •The IC upheld the Council's refusal, citing the cumulative burden of Boyce's correspondence and lack of serious purpose.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Section 1(1): General right of access to information.
FOIA
FOIA Section 14(1): Public authority not obliged to comply with vexatious requests.
FOIA
FOIA Section 58: Tribunal's power to allow or dismiss appeals based on legality and proper exercise of discretion.
FOIA
Full merits review of the public authority's response under FOIA on appeal.
Information Commissioner v Malnick and ACOBA [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)
Guiding principles for assessing vexatiousness (no reasonable foundation for thinking information sought would be of value).
Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC); Dransfield v Information Commission & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Public authority can rely on different exemptions from disclosure (Birkett v DEFRA [2011] EWCA Civ 1606).
Birkett v DEFRA [2011] EWCA Civ 1606
Outcomes
Appeal EA/2023/0062 (First Appeal) DISMISSED.
The First Request was deemed vexatious as Boyce used it as leverage to obtain a free bin replacement, lacking serious value or public interest.
Appeal EA/2023/0105 (Second Appeal) ALLOWED (partially).
The Second Request, except for the final question (repeating the First Request), was not vexatious. The questions about CCTV were different from previous requests and had potential value. The IC's decision was not in accordance with the law.