Mark Bill v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 669 (GRC)
Stephen Purden v the The Information Commissioner
24 September 2024
[2024] UKFTT 848 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked for info about a company's public documents. The government agency said the company didn't have the info yet. The requester disagreed, but the judge agreed with the agency because there was no evidence the company had hidden anything. The paperwork was a bit messy, but the judge decided it didn't matter enough to stop the case.
Key Facts
- •Stephen Purden (Appellant) appealed a Decision Notice (DN) issued by the Information Commissioner (Respondent) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The request was made to Harrogate Healthcare Facilities Management Ltd (HHFM), later Harrogate Integrated Facilities (HIF), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust.
- •The request sought information on measures taken to comply with the publication scheme requirements of FOIA section 19 since 2020.
- •The Commissioner found that HIF did not hold the requested information at the time of the request.
- •The appeal challenged the DN's service (incorrectly served on HIF Ltd instead of HHFM) and the Commissioner's assessment of whether information was held.
- •The Tribunal deemed service on the Trust sufficient, avoiding disproportionate resource expenditure.
Legal Principles
FOIA s.1(1): Right to be informed whether information is held and to receive it if held.
FOIA s.1(1)
FOIA s.58: Tribunal powers to allow or dismiss appeals based on legal compliance or discretionary errors.
FOIA s.58
FOIA s.3(1)(b) & s.6(1): Definition of publicly-owned companies as public authorities under FOIA.
FOIA s.3(1)(b) & s.6(1)
The standard of proof for determining whether information is held is the balance of probabilities.
Bromley v the Information Commissioner and the Environment Agency (EA/2006/0072), Malcolm v Information Commissioner EA/2008/0072, Dudley v Information Commissioner EA/2008/008, Councillor Jeremy Clyne v the Information Commissioner and London Borough of Lambeth EA/2011/0190
The Information Commissioner is entitled to accept a public authority's account if there's no evidence of inadequate search, reluctance to search, or motive to withhold information.
Oates v IC and Architects Registration Board EA/2011/0138
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the DN was effectively served, the Commissioner's decision was legally sound, and that the information requested was not held at the time of the request. The Tribunal accepted the public authority's account due to lack of evidence to the contrary.
Tribunal allowed the appeal to proceed despite the DN being incorrectly addressed.
Serving a new DN would create disproportionate waste of resources.