Maya Forstater v The Information Commissioner & Ors
[2023] UKUT 303 (AAC)
Canal and River Trust v Information Commissioner & Anor
28 March 2023
[2023] UKUT 92 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone asked the Canal and River Trust for information. The Trust said it wasn't obligated to share it because it wasn't a 'public authority' in this instance. A lower court disagreed, but a higher court sided with the Trust, saying the information wasn't about the Trust's public duties, but about its private land ownership.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Wolfe requested information from the Canal and River Trust (CRT) regarding mooring agreements.
- •CRT argued it wasn't a public authority under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) for this information.
- •The Information Commissioner agreed with CRT.
- •The First-tier Tribunal disagreed, finding CRT to be a public authority.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) heard an appeal.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation requires considering words within their context, with the statute's overall purpose as the primary source of meaning.
R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3, [2023] AC 255
External aids like explanatory notes are secondary to the clear and unambiguous wording of the statute.
R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3, [2023] AC 255
Functions transferred to CRT under the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 are defined by the legislation listed in the Order's Schedule 1.
British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, Public Bodies Act 2011
The FOIA Schedule 1 entry regarding CRT should be interpreted consistently with Article 2 of the 2012 Order.
FOIA Schedule 1, paragraph 15(2)(b) of Schedule 3 to the 2012 Order
Outcomes
The First-tier Tribunal's decision was set aside.
The Tribunal incorrectly interpreted 'exercisable' in Schedule 1 to FOIA and misidentified the starting point for interpretation.
The CRT was not a public authority under FOIA in respect of the information requested by Mr. Wolfe.
The information related to CRT's rights as a landowner, not to functions transferred under the 2012 Order. The relevant function (section 43(3) of TA1962) was a power to impose charges, not something contractual.