Key Issue in Rubino v IC: Adequacy of Searches for Environmental Information Requests

Citation: [2023] UKFTT 987 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of John Rubino & Anor v The Information Commissioner & Anor ([2023] UKFTT 00987 (GRC)) explores the legal intricacies of information rights within the framework of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and the duties of public authorities in conducting searches for information requests. The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) makes determinations on whether searches were adequate and whether information has been rightfully withheld.

Key Facts

John and Tony Rubino requested specific environmental information from the Hertford Heath Parish Council concerning the preparation and process of its Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the neighbourhood plan. Following inadequate initial responses and subsequent appeals, additional information and unredacted documents were released to the appellants. The appellants, however, contended that further information, which may have been held by third parties on behalf of the Council, had not been adequately searched for. The main point of contention revolved around specific documents linked to Dropbox, instructions to AECOM (a consulting firm), and communications involving the Council and third parties.

The tribunal applied legal principles derived from both the EIR and case law surrounding information requests. The pivotal legal issues navigated throughout this case include:

  1. Scope of EIR: The applicability of the EIR extends to information held by another person on behalf of the public authority, a point initially misunderstood by the Council.
  2. Adequate Searches: The expectation that public authorities conduct reasonable and proportionate searches for information upon request. This encompasses searches where consultants or steering groups might hold information on behalf of a public authority.
  3. Information Held by a Third Party: The duty of public authorities to ask third parties like consultants or steering group members if they hold information which falls within the scope of the request and on behalf of the authority.
  4. Transparency and Responsiveness: The requirement for public authorities to act transparently in their information handling and response to FOIA/EIR requests.

The decisions and principles cited are central to ensuring that public authorities uphold standards of transparency and responsiveness when dealing with requests for information, especially when third parties are involved in the retention of information on their behalf.

Outcomes

The tribunal determined that the Information Commissioner had not conducted a complete inquiry into whether further information was held by the Council and, therefore, had erred in accepting the assertions of the public authority without further investigation. The tribunal directed the public authority to:

  • Conduct further searches for the requested information.
  • Engage with third parties like AECOM and Govresources Ltd to ascertain if they held requested information on behalf of the Council.

It was not concluded that the Council held additional information; rather, the tribunal found the Council’s searches insufficient to support the conclusion that no further information existed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the tribunal’s decision was substituted for that of the Information Commissioner.

Conclusion

This case underscores the diligence required by public authorities and the Information Commissioner in handling information requests under the Environmental Information Regulations. The tribunal has emphasized the breadth of EIR’s applicability, especially concerning information held on behalf of public authorities by third parties, and the requirement for comprehensive searches in response to such requests. The decision serves as a pivotal reminder that assumptions or incomplete inquiries can lead to erroneous conclusions concerning the possession of additional requested information. For legal professionals, the case reaffirms the principles that must be adhered to in managing requests and securing compliance with EIR provisions.