Tribunal Upholds Vexatious Label on FOIA Requests in Boyce v The Information Commissioner Case

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 44 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Simon James Boyce v The Information Commissioner ([2024] UKFTT 44 (GRC)) presents a dispute involving the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the vexatious nature of requests. This matter was heard in the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) and scrutinizes two separate requests made by the appellant, Boyce, to Hertsmere Borough Council, which were withheld on grounds of being vexatious under Section 14(1) of FOIA.

Key Facts

Boyce, the appellant, corresponded with Hertsmere Borough Council concerning his damaged wheelie bin and subsequent FOIA requests. Initial requests were refused under Section 12 FOIA due to costs of compliance. After attempting to refine his requests, the Council then deemed them vexatious under Section 14(1) FOIA. Two appeals were lodged by Boyce against Decision Notices of the Information Commissioner which upheld the Council’s refusals. The Tribunal analyzed whether the requests were legitimately vexatious or whether the Council was required to comply with them under the FOIA.

The Tribunal employed several legal principles to resolve the disputes. The primary legislation in question was the FOIA, notably Sections 1, 14, and 58. The principles for determining if a request is vexatious (Section 14(1) FOIA) were guided by precedents in Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield ([2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)) and confirmed by Dransfield v Information Commission & Devon County Council ([2015] EWCA Civ 454), which provide criteria for assessing whether a request lacks a reasonable foundation or is burdensome to a point of causing a significant drain on resources without purpose or value.

Additionally, the Tribunal examined Section 1 FOIA, which establishes a general right to access information, and Section 58 FOIA, which outlines the Tribunal’s power on appeal to review the Commissioner’s decision and correct it if found not in accordance with the law or if there was an inappropriate exercise of discretion.

Outcomes

In the First Appeal, related to FOIA requests made on 27 July 2021 and 26 August 2021, the Tribunal dismissed Boyce’s appeal. The requests were deemed vexatious as they were made with the improper motive of pressurizing the Council to replace his wheelie bin for free, constituting leverage rather than seeking information of genuine value.

The Second Appeal, which stemmed from a request dated 26 May 2022, was partially allowed. The Tribunal differentiated between the questions asked in the Second Request concerning operational matters of CCTV footage related to Boyce’s specific complaint, and one repeating a question from the First Request. The former, unlike the latter, was judged not vexatious, as it sought information pertaining to how the Council handled the CCTV footage, which may lead to a better understanding of the Council’s argument concerning the damage to Boyce’s bin.

Conclusion

The Boyce case is instructive on the appropriate deployment of Section 14(1) FOIA in regards to vexatious requests, emphasizing that each request should be assessed individually and on its merits, in context and with regard to genuine purpose and public interest. It reaffirms that while public authorities are shielded from capricious and burdensome requests, legitimate inquiries that serve to clarify or shed light on public concerns must be facilitated under FOIA. The Tribunal’s systematic approach showcases the balance between preventing the misuse of the FOIA whilst upholding the fundamental right to access information held by public authorities.