DH v Information Commissioner and Bolton Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Markus |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKUT 139 (AAC),[2016] UKUT 139 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Information rights,Information rights - Freedom of information - absolute exemptions |
| Date | 10 March 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
DH v (1) Information Commissioner, (2) Bolton Council
[2016] UKUT 0139 (AAC)
GIA/4597/2014 1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. GIA/4597/2014
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge K Markus QC
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Anya Proops (counsel, instructed by Wiggin LLP)
For the First Respondent: Mr Robin Hopkins (counsel, instructed by Mr Richard
Bailey, solicitor for the Information Commissioner)
For the Second Respondent: Mr Christopher Knight (counsel, instructed by Ms
Victoria Bracegirdle, solicitor for Bolton Council)
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 3 July 2014 under number
EA/2014/0029 was made in error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 I set that decision aside and remake the
decision.
The decision which I make is that the name of the councillor who is referred to as
“Case 5” in the Annex to the Second Respondent’s response to the request for
information is not exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) Freedom of Information
Act 2000. The Second Respondent must provide that information to the Appellant
within 35 days after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties.
OPEN REASONS FOR DECISION
Background to the appeal
1. The Appellant is a journalist who works for the Bolton News. He submitted a
request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) to Bolton Council
(“the Council”) for disclosure of information about councillors who had received
reminders for non-payment of council tax since May 2011. The Council told him
that there were six such councillors and informed him which political party they
were members of, how much had been owed, how much was outstanding, and
that two had been summoned to court. On 16 November 2012 the Appellant
asked for the names of the individual councillors. The Council refused on the
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
Department for Transport v (1) The Information Commissioner & (2) Dr Minh Alexander
...three-judge panel of the UT in Paul Davies, at paragraph 22, approved the summary of UT Judge Markus QC in DH v IC and Bolton Council [2016] UKUT 0139 (AAC), at paragraph "Counsel for both Respondents have reminded me of the importance of the Upper Tribunal exercising restraint when faced w......
-
Davies v The Information Commissioner; The Cabinet Office (GIA)
...were adequate, we remind ourselves of the approach summarised by Judge Markus in DH v Information Commissioner and Bolton Council [2016] UKUT 0139 (AAC) at “Counsel for both Respondents have reminded me of the importance of the Upper Tribunal exercising restraint when faced with a challenge......
-
Webber v Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office
...Mr Webber advocates that I adopt the latter approach, and cites by way of example DH v Information Commissioner and Bolton Council [2016] UKUT 139 (AAC). In that case Upper Tribunal Judge Markus QC re-made the decision having expressly found that she was in as good a position as the First-t......
-
Bristol City Council
...are. This was considered in the Upper Tribunal decision Kate Markus QC in DH v Information Commissioner and Bolton Council: [2016] UKUT 139 (AAC), which found that the councillors’ names who were in council tax arrears should be disclosed.2 14. The complainant referred to this decision by t......
Request a trial to view additional results