Tribunal Upholds Decision on Vexatious FOIA Request in Kuldeep Singh Case

Introduction

The case of Kuldeep Singh v The Information Commissioner [2023] UKFTT 01002 (GRC) is an intriguing instance examining the boundaries of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the concept of ‘vexatious’ requests. The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) scrutinized the appellant’s request and the motives behind it, utilising established legal principles to uphold the Information Commissioner’s decision, thus dismissing the appeal.

Key Facts

Kuldeep Singh, the appellant, had an ongoing dispute with the University of Hertfordshire since 2016 over tuition fee payment issues. Consequently, he made numerous FOIA requests and lodged various complaints and appeals against the university. His latest FOIA request sought information about the alleged discrepancy between the amount stated on international students’ Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) and the actual tuition fee invoice amounts. The university refused the request, labeling it vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA. Singh appealed against the Commissioner’s decision notice, which upheld the university’s position.

Legal Principals

The Tribunal drew extensively from the legal framework established in previous case law, particularly Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454 and Information Commissioner v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), to delineate the standards for a vexatious request. Focused on the statute’s aim to protect public resources, the Tribunal underscored that FOIA’s right to information extends only until its misuse becomes apparent.

The Dransfield case set forth several pointers to determine vexatiousness, notably burden on the public authority, requester’s motive, value or serious purpose of the request, and any harassment or distress to staff. Each of these considerations requires a holistic assessment addressing the question of whether the request is a “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of FOIA.”

The Tribunal also noted that public interest cannot be the overriding factor and must be balanced against the resources expended and other relevant factors. In this case, it was emphasized that motive plays a pivotal role and that a vexatious request is one without a reasonable foundation, i.e., no substantial chance that the information sought would be valuable to the requester or the public.

Outcomes

Upon analysis, the Tribunal determined that Singh’s request bore an improper motive linked to a longstanding grudge against the university, rather than genuine information-seeking. The excessive burden the request would place on the university was underscored, as it would require reviewing a vast amount of records without any evidence suggesting a justifiable cause. Furthermore, it was discerned that Singh could, and did, pursue other processes (whistleblowing) which mitigated the need for the FOIA request in question.

The Tribunal found no misconduct or distress caused by the request per se, but established that the request lacked purpose or value as Singh had already pursued those allegations through other channels.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Tribunal’s dismissal of Singh’s appeal was predicated on a comprehensive appraisal of his conduct, revealing a pattern of actions indicative of vexatiousness under FOIA. This case serves as a pertinent exemplar to UK legal professionals on how FOIA can be defended against abuse and insists on a rightful equilibrium between transparency and practical utility. The principles applied here reinforce the safeguarding of the FOIA against exploitation by virtue of personal vendettas.