Tribunal Strikes Out Appeal in Frank Wilson v The Information Commissioner Over Scope of FOIA Request

Introduction

In the matter of Frank Wilson v The Information Commissioner, the UK First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber on Information Rights) was presented with an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The case explores whether the Newcastle City Council (the Council) complied with FOIA obligations concerning an information request specific to a safety audit for a cycle lane scheme. This article analyzes the legal principles applied, considering findings from previous cases and Tribunal rules, to elucidate how the Tribunal arrived at their decision to strike out the appeal.

Key Facts

Frank Wilson, the Appellant, requested from the Council: “A copy of Newcastle City Council’s submission for a safety audit on the Broadway to Brunton Lane cycle lane scheme”. The Council provided various documents and emails, including a chain showing a submission request for a Stage 3 Safety Audit to Systra, along with Stage 1 & Stage 2 Safety Audits. The Commissioner determined the Council complied with FOIA section 1(1), stating no further relevant information was held. Wilson contended he had not received all the requested information, particularly regarding the Council’s reasoning for decisions made in the Stage 3 Audit and expected documents.

Legal Principals

The core legal principles guiding this case emerge from section 1(1) of FOIA, requiring public authorities to inform an appellant whether the requested information is held and communicate the information if it is. The standard applied by the Tribunal is the civil standard of proof—on the balance of probabilities. Critical case references include Linda Bromley v the Information Commissioner and the Environment Agency [EA/2006/0072], Malcolm v Information Commissioner [EA/2008/0072], and Dudley v Information Commissioner [EA/2008/008], affirming this standard.

The Tribunal also cited the Upper Tribunal case of Andrew Preston v Information Commissioner and Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2022] UKUT 344 (AAC) with approval, maintaining consistency in the application of the balance of probabilities test to whether a public authority holds information.

An integral aspect of FOIA requests is the specificity of the language used by the requester, which was critical in Wilson’s grounds of appeal. The Tribunal leveraged Tribunal Rules, particularly rule 8(2)(a) [no jurisdiction] and 8(3)(c) [Appellant’s case has no reasonable prospects of success], to determine if the appeal should progress to a hearing.

Outcomes

The Tribunal found, based on the civil standard of proof and the evidence provided, that the information Wilson continued to seek (details of decisions made concerning the Stage 3 Audit) was not within the scope of the information explicitly requested, and thus would not obligate the Council under FOIA. The Appellant’s interest might have been served if he had requested information directly concerning the Council’s decision not to complete certain works.

The Tribunal struck out the appeal under rule 8(3)(c) regarding paragraphs one and two of the appeal, and under rule 8(2)(a) or rule 8(3)(c) for paragraphs three to eight. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that there was no error of law or in the Commissioner’s discretion in the original Decision Notice.

Conclusion

The Tribunal’s decision in Frank Wilson v The Information Commissioner reinforces the principle that the specificity of an information request and the standard ‘on the balance of probabilities’ are pivotal to the outcome of FOIA appeals. It also illustrates the tribunal’s reliance on prior case law and rules governing its jurisdiction and the reasonable prospects of success of appeals. The case upholds the importance of precision in drafting FOIA requests and the limitations of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in addressing matters outside the framework of the original information request.