Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner and Ashton
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wikeley |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Information rights,Information rights - Freedom of Information - exceptions,Information rights - Freedom of information - right of access,Information rights - Information rights: practice,procedure,Wikeley,N |
| Date | 21 June 2018 |
| Published date | 26 July 2018 |
Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC)
GIA/2782/2017
1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
The DECISION of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal by the Appellant.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Information
Rights) dated 25 July 2017 (issued under the slip rule, correcting the earlier decision
dated 17 July 2017, following the hearing on 19 June 2017), under file reference
EA/2016/0272 does not involve any 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.
Representation
The Appellant: Mr Colin Thomann of Counsel, instructed by the
Government Legal Department
The First Respondent: Mr Michael Armitage of Counsel, Instructed by the
Information Commissioner
The Second Respondent: Ms Aileen McColgan of Counsel
REASONS FOR DECISION
What this appeal is about: the legal question
1. The legal question at the heart of this appeal relates to the proper assessment of
an allegedly “vexatious” request (within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 [FOIA]). In particular, does a compelling public interest in the
disclosure of information held by a public authority necessarily trump any
consideration of the resource burden involved in complying with that request, such
that the request cannot under any circumstances be regarded as vexatious?
2. The short answer to that question, as a matter of principle, is no.
3. However, in the present case I conclude that the First-tier Tribunal did not err in
law. Despite some infelicitous language, it did not start from (or indeed end at) the
position that the answer to the question posed in paragraph 1 above was necessarily
in the affirmative. Rather, I find that the First-tier Tribunal concluded, in the particular
circumstances of this case and looking at matters in the round, that the significant
public interest in the disclosure of the requested information had the effect in this
instance of outweighing the undoubtedly burdensome resource considerations. It
followed the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to come to the decision it did. It follows
equally that the public authority’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Office of the Advocate General for Scotland
...requested. It referred the Commissioner to the Upper Tribunal’s comments in Cabinet Office vs Information Commissioner and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC)4: “In some cases, the burden of complying with the request will be sufficient, in itself, to justify characterising that request as and suc......
-
Avon Fire Authority
...do this. 54. On that point, the Commissioner notes that the Upper Tribunal case of Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner v Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC) made clear that section 14(1) of the FOIA can apply on the basis of the burden placed on the public authority, even where there was a p......
-
Department of Health and Social Care
...50. Case law says that on using section 14 for reasons of burden alone, in Cabinet Office vs Information Commissioner and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC), the UT said “[I]n some cases, the burden of complying with the request will be sufficient, in itself, to justify characterising that reques......