Philippe Benfell v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 877 (GRC)
Thomas Bright v The Information Commissioner & Anor
25 March 2024
[2024] UKFTT 256 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone repeatedly asked the council for information related to a personal dispute, causing a lot of extra work for them. The court ruled that these requests were 'vexatious' (annoying and unjustified) and didn't need to be answered because the information didn't serve a strong public interest. The repeated requests, focusing on a past complaint, were considered excessive.
Key Facts
- •Thomas Bright appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner (IC) upholding the Royal Borough of Greenwich's (Greenwich) refusal to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •Greenwich refused the request based on section 14(1) FOIA (vexatious requests).
- •Bright's requests stemmed from a dispute with the then-Leader of Greenwich, Councillor Thorpe, concerning tweets.
- •The requests involved numerous prior Subject Access Requests (SARs) and FOIA requests.
- •The Tribunal considered the burden on Greenwich, Bright's motive, the value/serious purpose of the request, and whether harassment or distress was caused.
Legal Principles
Section 14(1) FOIA allows a public authority to refuse a vexatious request.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
The meaning of 'vexatious' in section 14(1) FOIA is guided by *Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield* [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), considering burden on the public authority, requester's motive, value/serious purpose of the request, and harassment/distress.
[2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
The public authority bears the burden of proving a request is vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA; it's a high hurdle.
*Dransfield v (1) Information Commissioner and (2) Devon County Council and Craven v (1) The Information Commissioner and (2) The Department for Energy and Climate Change* [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that Greenwich faced a significant burden, the request lacked serious public interest, and continued requests risked causing harassment and distress. The requests were deemed vexatious.