Benjamin Lakey v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Benjamin Lakey v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The tribunal found that the opinions of the qualified persons (Solicitor General) were substantively reasonable and that the exemptions under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), and 36(2)(c) FOIA were engaged. The tribunal concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions, given the critical importance of confidentiality to the Ministerial Interests process and the effective conduct of public affairs, outweighed the public interest in disclosure. There was no evidence of impropriety or that disclosure would serve a stronger public interest in this case. The exemptions were not applied in a blanket fashion but were justified for all withheld information. The appeals were...

Parties
Appellant: Benjamin Lakey; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Attorney General’s Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Public Interest Immunity, Ministerial Code, Confidentiality, Judicial Bias, Disclosure Exemptions
Administrative Law Information Rights Freedom of Information Public Interest Immunity Ministerial Code Confidentiality Judicial Bias Disclosure 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Lakey

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Attorney General’s Office

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Attorney General’s Office was entitled to withhold information under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), and 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
  2. 2 Whether the opinion of the qualified person was reasonable for the purposes of engaging section 36 exemptions
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the opinions of the qualified persons (Solicitor General) were substantively reasonable and that the exemptions under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), and 36(2)(c) FOIA were engaged. The tribunal concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions, given the critical importance of confidentiality to the Ministerial Interests process and the effective conduct of public affairs, outweighed the public interest in disclosure. There was no evidence of impropriety or that disclosure would serve a stronger public interest in this case. The exemptions were not applied in a blanket fashion but were justified for all withheld information. The appeals were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals FT/EA/2025/0047 and FT/EA/2025/0120 are dismissed.
  • The Attorney General’s Office was entitled to withhold the requested information under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), and 36(2)(c) FOIA.