Dr RJ Abrahart v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Dr RJ Abrahart v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that, whether Requests 2 and 3 were information requests or requests for advice and assistance, the cumulative effect of the appellant's repeated and overlapping requests imposed a disproportionate burden on the Department for Education. The Commissioner did not err in law in finding the requests vexatious under s.14 FOIA, and even if s.16 applied, it would not have been reasonable to expect DfE to provide further advice or assistance as all non-exempt information had already been disclosed or lawfully withheld.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. R. J. Abrahart; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Department for Education
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (information Rights) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Vexatious Requests, Advice and Assistance Duty, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Vexatious Requests Advice and Assistance Duty Statutory Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. R. J. Abrahart

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Department for Education

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (information Rights) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Requests 2 and 3 were information requests under s.1 FOIA or requests for advice and assistance under s.16 FOIA
  2. 2 Whether s.14 FOIA (vexatious requests) was properly applied to the requests
  3. 3 Whether the Department for Education breached its duty under s.16 FOIA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, whether Requests 2 and 3 were information requests or requests for advice and assistance, the cumulative effect of the appellant's repeated and overlapping requests imposed a disproportionate burden on the Department for Education. The Commissioner did not err in law in finding the requests vexatious under s.14 FOIA, and even if s.16 applied, it would not have been reasonable to expect DfE to provide further advice or assistance as all non-exempt information had already been disclosed or lawfully withheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed