Dransfield v Information Commissioner (Section 50: Jurisdiction): [2020] UKUT 346 (AAC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Judge | Judge Wikeley |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 346 (AAC) |
| Published date | 25 January 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Information rights - Information rights: practice,procedure,Tribunal procedure,practice - other,practice - tribunal jurisdiction,Wikeley,N |
Dransfield -v- Information Commissioner (Section 50(2): Jurisdiction) [2020] UKUT 346 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. GIA/399/2020
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Information
Rights)
Between: Mr Alan Melville Dransfield Appellant
- v –
The Information Commissioner Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley
Decision date: 10 December 2020
Decided on consideration of the papers
Representation:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr Richard Bailey, Solicitor, ICO
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
(Information Rights) dated 13 November 2019 under file reference
QJ/2019/0289 does not involve any material error on a point of law. The First-
tier Tribunal’s decision stands.
This decision is given under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007.
Dransfield -v- Information Commissioner (Section 50(2): Jurisdiction) [2020] UKUT 346 (AAC)
GIA/399/2020
2
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. Mr Alan Dransfield (self-proclaimed ‘FOI Campaigner and Social Watchdog’)
has achieved some fame, or possibly in certain quarters some notoriety, in the
world of information rights. For better or worse, his name has become
inextricably associated with the eponymous legal test, namely the Dransfield
test for assessing whether a freedom of information request is “vexatious” within
the meaning of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
2. This fame is as a result of earlier legal proceedings involving Mr Dransfield.
Those proceedings culminated in the Court of Appeal dismissing his FOIA
section 14 appeal in May 2015. I refer to that precedent as “the Dransfield
case”. The present appeal involves a different but related issue arising from
what might be described as the fall-out from that earlier litigation. The sole
parties to this appeal are Mr Dransfield as the Appellant and the Information
Commissioner (the Respondent).
A couple of preliminary observations
3. First, it is right to record that in the present proceedings Mr Dransfield has not
(as has been his wont in the past) repeatedly peppered the Upper Tribunal e-
mail in-box with intemperate messages making scurrilous (if not defamatory)
allegations about the Respondent or members of the judiciary. He has only
occasionally done so and in a way that is indicative of vexatious conduct (see
e.g. paragraphs 87-91 below). Be that as it may, the question for me is not
whether Mr Dransfield’s conduct of the present case has been vexatious.
4. Second, Mr Dransfield now appears to have had the assistance of Dr Kirkham,
who has extensive experience of litigating FOIA cases in his own right before
both the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. Dr Kirkham has not at any time been
formally nominated as Mr Dransfield’s representative. However, the style,
formatting and footnoting of Mr Dransfield’s detailed written submissions in this
appeal are identical to those adopted by Dr Kirkham in his own litigation. In
addition, the relative sophistication of the arguments being advanced in these
proceedings is at a level not previously attained by Mr Dransfield acting in
person, whose usual method of communication is the terse, angry e-mail with
typographical errors. Again, and be all that as it may, it makes no difference to
the way this case has been handled. It is entirely a matter for Mr Dransfield as
to whether he wishes to acknowledge the role played by Dr Kirkham in these
proceedings. As Dr Kirkham is not ‘on the record’ and so has no formal role in
the current appeal, I refer in this decision to the Appellant’s submissions as
being Mr Dransfield’s submissions.
The central issue raised by this appeal
5. Notwithstanding Mr Dransfield’s (or Dr Kirkham’s) best efforts to complicate
matters, at the root of this appeal is a single and relatively simple question. If
the Information Commissioner states to a FOIA requester that she is not going
to make a decision on his complaint because it is vexatious, does that
complainant have the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to challenge that
refusal?
Dransfield -v- Information Commissioner (Section 50(2): Jurisdiction) [2020] UKUT 346 (AAC)
GIA/399/2020
3
6. The short answer to that question is No. But in order to take the present appeal
forward, it is first helpful to take a step back so as to understand its context.
The wider background to this appeal: the Dransfield case
7. Long ago (back in January 2013) I allowed an appeal by the Information
Commissioner against a First-tier Tribunal decision which had found in Mr
Dransfield’s favour (i.e. that one of his FOIA requests was not vexatious). I
summarised my decision in the following terms (see Information Commissioner
v Dransfield and Devon CC [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC); [2015] AACR 34):
“1. Mr Alan Dransfield made a short request to Devon County Council
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). He asked for “the
approved design drawings for the Pedestrian Bridge [at the Exeter
Chiefs’ Rugby Ground] and LPS [lightning protection system] test
results since Devon County Council adopted the Pedestrian Bridge”.
The council refused that request on the basis that it was vexatious,
relying on section 14(1) of FOIA.
2. The Information Commissioner (“IC”) issued a Decision Notice
(FS50317322) following Mr Dransfield’s complaint. The IC concluded
that the Council had appropriately applied section 14(1) of FOIA,
although he also found that the Council had failed to deal with the
request within the stipulated time limit. No remedial steps were
required of the public authority.
3. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed Mr Dransfield’s appeal
(EA/2011/0079) against the IC’s Decision Notice. The FTT ruled that
his request was not vexatious within section 14(1) and that the
information in question should be disclosed to him by Devon CC. I
subsequently gave the IC permission to appeal to the Upper
Tribunal.
4. My conclusion, in summary, is that the FTT misapplied the proper
legal text for establishing whether a request for information under
FOIA is “vexatious” within section 14(1) of FOIA. I set aside the
FTT’s decision for that error of law. I also re-make the decision under
appeal. My substituted decision is that Mr Dransfield’s appeal against
the IC’s Decision Notice is dismissed as the request in issue was
indeed vexatious within the proper meaning of that statutory term.”
8. In the course of that decision I gave extensive guidance on how section 14(1) of
FOIA should be interpreted and applied by public authorities and the
Information Commissioner. Mr Dransfield, as was his right, then appealed to the
Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal in Dransfield v Information
AACR 34. In summary, the Court of Appeal approved the guidance in the Upper
Tribunal’s decision, albeit with some gloss.
9. The Supreme Court in turn subsequently refused Mr Dransfield permission to
appeal (on which see https://panopticonblog.com/2015/12/17/dransfield-
supreme-court-game/); according to the Supreme Court’s website, this refusal
was promulgated on 14 December 2015. The Supreme Court’s ruling was
simply that “Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not
raise an arguable point of law.”
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
