Dr Dorian Gerhold v Information Commissioner & Anor

Dr Dorian Gerhold v Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the requested information related to the ongoing formulation and development of government policy regarding the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, that the policy remained live at the relevant dates, and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Tribunal also found that section 43(2) was correctly applied to certain commercially sensitive information, and that redaction was not feasible as it would render the information meaningless.

Parties
Appellant: Dr Dorian Gerhold; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government (MHCLG)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Government Policy Exemptions, Public Interest Test, Commercial Interests Exemption, Personal Data Exemption
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Government Policy Exemptions Public Interest Test Commercial Interests Exemption Personal Data Exemption

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Dorian Gerhold

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government (MHCLG)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the public interest test under section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) was correctly applied to withhold information relating to the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre project.
  2. 2 Whether section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) was correctly applied to withhold certain information in the second request.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the requested information related to the ongoing formulation and development of government policy regarding the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, that the policy remained live at the relevant dates, and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Tribunal also found that section 43(2) was correctly applied to certain commercially sensitive information, and that redaction was not feasible as it would render the information meaningless.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals are dismissed.
  • No order for disclosure of the requested information.