Stephen Masterman v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 289 (GRC)
Thomas Allum v The Information Commissioner
30 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 98 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked for information about a parking contract. The government sided with the company that didn't want to release it. A judge ruled that the company *must* release the info because the government didn't have good enough reasons to keep it secret.
Key Facts
- •Thomas Allum (Appellant) requested information from Lewisham Homes Limited (Authority) about contracts and correspondence with Ace Security Services (Contractor) regarding a controlled parking scheme.
- •Lewisham Homes withheld information citing sections 40 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The Information Commissioner (Commissioner) upheld Lewisham Homes' reliance on section 43 (commercial interests), but noted a breach of section 10 (time limits).
- •Allum appealed the Commissioner's decision.
- •The appeal focused on the application of the public interest test under section 43 of FOIA, not the merits of the parking scheme or alleged breaches of lease agreements.
Legal Principles
Section 43(2) FOIA: Information is exempt if disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests. This requires a causal link between disclosure and prejudice, and the prejudice must be real and significant.
FOIA, Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner & Frank Zola [2016] EWCA Civ 758, Carolyne Willow v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 1876
Public Interest Test (section 2(2)(b) FOIA): A three-step approach: identify relevant public interests, determine which is more significant, and explain the balance struck.
O’Hanlon v Information Commissioner [2019] UKUT 34 (AAC)
Tribunal's powers (section 58 FOIA): To determine if the Commissioner's notice was lawful or if discretion was wrongly exercised; to review findings of fact.
FOIA
Outcomes
Appeal Allowed
The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the Commissioner's conclusion that section 43(2) FOIA was engaged. The Commissioner lacked sufficient evidence regarding the size of the Contractor's market and failed to consider that the contract had ended and the Authority used Traffic Management Orders. The Commissioner also did not adequately consider that the contract contained provisions recognising potential FOIA disclosure.
Substituted Decision Notice
Lewisham Homes must disclose the requested information, subject to section 40 redactions (personal data), within 35 days. Section 43(2) was not engaged.