David Bennet v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 1031 (GRC)
Terry Crossland v Information Commissioner & Anor
2 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 361 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Mr. Crossland argued that Leeds City Council didn't properly answer his information requests about a planning dispute. A judge agreed that the council made some minor mistakes in how it responded, but found the council didn't have any more information to give Mr. Crossland.
Key Facts
- •Terry Crossland appealed an Information Commissioner's decision regarding Leeds City Council's handling of his information requests under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).
- •The requests stemmed from a long-running dispute over a neighbour's wall height.
- •The Council initially claimed the requests were 'manifestly unreasonable' but later withdrew this claim.
- •The central issue was whether the Council held further undisclosed information relevant to Crossland's requests.
- •The appeal focused on procedural aspects of the Council's handling of the requests and allegations of misleading conduct.
Legal Principles
Public authorities must make environmental information available on request (Regulation 5(1) EIR), subject to exceptions (Regulation 12(4) EIR) and time limits (Regulation 5(2) EIR).
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The standard of proof for determining whether a public authority holds information is the balance of probabilities.
Bromley v Information Commissioner and Environment Agency (EA/2006/0072)
Public authorities must issue a refusal notice (Regulation 14 EIR) if relying on an exception, specifying reasons and informing the applicant of their rights to representation and appeal.
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to considering whether the Commissioner's decision was wrong in law.
Tribunal Rules
Late reliance on exemptions is permitted during appeal proceedings, subject to case management powers.
Birkett v Defra and IC [2012] AACR 32
The public interest test (Regulation 12(1)(b) EIR) is not applicable when the authority does not hold the requested information (Regulation 12(4)(a) EIR).
This case's analysis
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision notice was not in accordance with the law due to technical breaches of regulations 14(3)(a), 14(5)(a), and 14(5)(b) by the Council, but no substantive breach of EIR.
Substituted Decision Notice: The Council does not hold further information under the EIR; there was no breach of Regulation 5(1) EIR; there were technical breaches of Regulations 14(3)(a), 14(5)(a) & (b) by the Council.
The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's finding that the Council did not hold further relevant information and addressed the procedural issues, concluding in several technical breaches but no material impact.