Tribunal Upholds Decision that Vexatious FOIA Request Violates Principle of Responsible Use

Introduction

In the case David Chow v The Information Commissioner, the UK’s First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights considered an appeal against a Decision Notice by the Information Commissioner regarding a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The request was deemed vexatious, prompting a legal analysis of the criteria and definitions that underpin such a determination. This article examines the key topics and legal principles applied in the case, linking them directly to the case law summary provided.

Key Facts

David Chow, the appellant, made a request under the FOIA to part of the Council of the University of Cambridge (“Cambridge”) for information related to a specific academic book. Cambridge initially withheld this information, citing sections 21 and 41 of FOIA, then subsequently determined that the request itself was vexatious under section 14(1). The Information Commissioner supported Cambridge’s decision, leading to Chow’s appeal. The Tribunal considered the history of requests, the burden on the public authority, the motive of the requester, and the value or serious purpose of the request in determining if Chow’s appeal could be supported.

Legal Principles

The key legal principles emerging from the tribunal’s analysis in this case revolve around application of section 14(1) of FOIA regarding vexatious requests. These include:

Burden of Request:

A holistic consideration of the burden a request poses to a public authority, including the pattern and breadth of the requests. A significant history of broad or frequent requests can indicate vexatiousness ([Para 12]-[Para 16]).

Motive of Requester:

While FOIA is ‘motive blind,’ the underlying rationale for information requests is relevant when considering vexatiousness. Requests associated with a longstanding grievance or dispute aren’t automatically vexatious but might become disproportionate or burdensome over time, indicating ‘vexatiousness by drift’ ([Para 18]-[Para 22]).

Value or Serious Purpose:

The inherent value or serious purpose of the request from a public interest standpoint. Subsequent requests risk becoming disproportionate to the original inquiry over time, diminishing their inherent value or serious purpose ([Para 23]-[Para 24]).

Causing Harassment or Distress to Staff:

Requests that cause harassment or distress or display obsessive conduct are signs of vexatiousness. Although this alone doesn’t suffice to classify a request as vexatious, it is a contributing factor when combined with others ([Para 25]-[Para 26]).

These principles are shaped by legal precedents, particularly Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), emphasizing the importance of proportionality and justification in evaluating vexatious requests and considering the totality of circumstances.

Outcomes

The Tribunal supported the Commissioner’s and Cambridge’s conclusion that Chow’s request was vexatious. It highlighted that Chow’s expectations were disproportionate and amounted to an inappropriate and improper use of the formal procedure under FOIA. On these grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that Cambridge and the Commissioner had acted in accordance with the law in their original assessment.

Conclusion

The case of David Chow v The Information Commissioner provides a comprehensive blueprint for assessing the vexatiousness of FOIA requests. The Tribunal’s detailed application of legal principles serves as a guide for public authorities and legal professionals in determining when an FOIA request becomes disproportionate and unreasonable. The decision underscores the importance of balancing the right to information with the expectations of responsible use of FOIA, reminding us that public interest and resource conservation are paramount in the realm of information rights.