Adrian Finch v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Adrian Finch v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that, based on new evidence and a revised factual matrix, the time required to comply with the information request would exceed the statutory cost limit under section 12 FOIA. Therefore, the Second Respondent was entitled to refuse the request. Even if section 12 did not apply, sections 40(2), 41, and 43(2) FOIA would exempt the information from disclosure due to personal data, breach of confidence, and commercial interests. The Tribunal exercised its case management powers to revisit section 12 despite a prior preliminary decision.

Parties
Appellant: Adrian Finch; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: His Majesty’s Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Breach of Confidence, Commercial Interests, Tribunal Procedure
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Personal Data Breach of Confidence Commercial Interests Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Finch

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

His Majesty’s Treasury

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 12 FOIA (cost limit) applies to the information request
  2. 2 Whether sections 40(2), 41, and 43(2) FOIA apply to withhold information
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal can revisit section 12 after a preliminary decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, based on new evidence and a revised factual matrix, the time required to comply with the information request would exceed the statutory cost limit under section 12 FOIA. Therefore, the Second Respondent was entitled to refuse the request. Even if section 12 did not apply, sections 40(2), 41, and 43(2) FOIA would exempt the information from disclosure due to personal data, breach of confidence, and commercial interests. The Tribunal exercised its case management powers to revisit section 12 despite a prior preliminary decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.