Lampert v Information Commissioner
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Lloyd-Davies |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKUT 60 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Information rights,Information rights - Freedom of information - absolute exemptions,Lloyd-Davies,A |
| Date | 14 February 2019 |
| Published date | 08 April 2019 |
Lampert v Information Commissioner [2019] UKUT 60 (AAC)
GIA/3422/2016
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. GIA/3422/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before A Lloyd-Davies, Judge of the Upper Tribunal
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal dated 20 September 2016 did not involve the making of
any material error of law. I accordingly dismiss Mr Lampert’s appeal.
REASONS
1. Although the point of law involved in this case is a narrow one, I consider it
would be helpful if I briefly outlined the background to the request for information
made by Mr Lampert so that his current appeal may be set in its context.
2. Mr Lampert had guaranteed the indebtedness of a company to a clearing
bank. That indebtedness was called in in the mid-1990s. The bank enforced its
guarantee. Litigation ensued. That litigation ended adversely to Mr Lampert by the
end of the 1990s (although there were also bankruptcy proceedings against Mr
Lampert which continued). Mr Lampert was dissatisfied with the way in which the
assets of the company had been realised on behalf of the bank and made a
complaint to the Financial Services Authority (now the Financial Conduct Authority,
but which I will refer to as “the FSA”). The FSA took no action.
3. Mr Lampert made numerous requests to the FSA for information relating to his
complaint about the bank. The last of his requests to the FSA was made on 20
December 2012. It was refused on the grounds that it was vexatious and repeated
within section 14 of FOIA. The Information Commissioner rejected a complaint by Mr
Lampert and upheld the decision of the FSA. The Information Commissioner’s
decision notice was under the reference FS 50488531 and was dated 8 October
2013. I shall refer to that decision notice as “the 2013 decision notice”.
4. The 2013 decision notice was not appealed. Mr Lampert then changed tack. In
October 2013 he wrote to the Information Commissioner asking for the information
that the Information Commissioner had obtained from the FSA in coming to its
decision in the 2013 decision notice. On 25 November 2013 the Information
Commissioner released all the information requested to Mr Lampert except personal
data of third parties and a document supplied by the FSA to the Information
Commissioner identified as “the briefing notes to Lord Turner [the then chairman of
the FSA]” and which I shall refer to as “the briefing notes”. The refusal by the
Information Commissioner to disclose the briefing notes was based on section
44(1)(a) of FOIA in conjunction with section 59(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998
(“DPA”). Mr Lampert complained to the Information Commissioner about its failure to
disclose the briefing notes. The Information Commissioner concluded in a decision
notice (with reference number FS50527606 and dated 6 May 2014) that section
44(1)(a) of DPA had been correctly applied to the non-disclosure of the briefing
notes. That decision was not appealed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Information Commissioner
...whether a public authority can be considered a business for the purposes of FOIA was addressed in Lampert v Information Commissioner [2019] UKUT 60 (AAC). This decision in the Upper Tribunal establishes “…the word ‘business’…cannot be limited to bodies which are engaged in commercial activi......