Adrian Finch v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Adrian Finch v The Information Commissioner & Anor

HMT was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(d), and 35(1)(a) to withhold information, as disclosure would likely prejudice crime prevention, tax collection, and ongoing policy development, and the public interest favoured maintaining these exemptions. However, HMT was not entitled to rely on section 42(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the withheld information was subject to legal professional privilege. HMT was also not entitled to rely on sections 40(5B) or 41(2) to refuse to confirm or deny holding further information, and it breached sections 10 and 17 by failing to identify all relevant information or issue a timely refusal notice.

Parties
Appellant: Adrian Finch; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: His Majesty’s Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Public Interest Test, Legal Professional Privilege, Government Policy Exemptions, Law Enforcement Exemptions
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Public Interest Test Legal Professional Privilege Government Policy Exemptions Law Enforcement Exemptions

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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Finch

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

His Majesty’s Treasury

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) was entitled to rely on exemptions under sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(d), 35(1)(a), and 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold information requested by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether HMT was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny holding further information under sections 40(5B) and 41(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
  3. 3 Whether HMT breached sections 10 and 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by failing to identify all relevant information or issue a refusal notice within 20 working days.

Ratio Decidendi

HMT was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(d), and 35(1)(a) to withhold information, as disclosure would likely prejudice crime prevention, tax collection, and ongoing policy development, and the public interest favoured maintaining these exemptions. However, HMT was not entitled to rely on section 42(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the withheld information was subject to legal professional privilege. HMT was also not entitled to rely on sections 40(5B) or 41(2) to refuse to confirm or deny holding further information, and it breached sections 10 and 17 by failing to identify all relevant information or issue a timely refusal notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • HMT must disclose information previously withheld under section 42(1) within 35 days of the decision, or within 28 days after notification of an unsuccessful appeal, if applicable.
  • HMT must comply with the steps specified by the Information Commissioner regarding confirmation or denial of further information held, within the same timeframes.