Dr. Brian Jones v Information Commissioner & Anor

Dr. Brian Jones v Information Commissioner & Anor

The request was manifestly unreasonable due to the significant time and specialist resources required to extract and compile the information, and the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the burden on the public authority, especially as similar analyses could be conducted using existing published data.

Parties
Appellant: Dr Brian Jones; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Animal and Plant Health Agency (an Executive Agency of the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Remote Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Information Regulations, Freedom of Information, Manifestly Unreasonable Requests, Badger Culling, Bovine Tuberculosis, Public Interest Test
Administrative Law Environmental Law Information Law Environmental Information Regulations Freedom of Information Manifestly Unreasonable Requests Badger Culling Bovine Tuberculosis +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Brian Jones

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Animal and Plant Health Agency (an Executive Agency of the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Remote Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applies to the request
  2. 2 Whether the request was manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception

Ratio Decidendi

The request was manifestly unreasonable due to the significant time and specialist resources required to extract and compile the information, and the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the burden on the public authority, especially as similar analyses could be conducted using existing published data.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed