Edward Carter v The Information Commissioner & Ors

Edward Carter v The Information Commissioner & Ors

Disclosure of the requested information would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime by weakening the Councils' security systems, as it would provide a ready-made list of answers to a security question used to verify ratepayers. Although the risk of successful fraud is low, the consequences are severe and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the limited public interest in disclosure. The exemption under section 31(1)(a) FOIA is engaged and the appeals are dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Edward Carter; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: City of London; Third Respondent: Westminster City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Section 31 FOIA (prevention of Crime), Section 41 FOIA (confidentiality), Section 12 FOIA (cost of Compliance), Section 14 FOIA (vexatious Requests)
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Section 31 FOIA (prevention of Crime) Section 41 FOIA (confidentiality) Section 12 FOIA (cost of Compliance) Section 14 FOIA (vexatious Requests)

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Carter

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

City of London

Second Respondent

Westminster City Council

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of company names liable for business rates and hereditaments would prejudice the prevention of crime under section 31(1)(a) FOIA
  2. 2 Whether the information is confidential under section 41 FOIA
  3. 3 Whether the cost of compliance exceeds the statutory limit under section 12 FOIA

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure of the requested information would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime by weakening the Councils' security systems, as it would provide a ready-made list of answers to a security question used to verify ratepayers. Although the risk of successful fraud is low, the consequences are severe and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the limited public interest in disclosure. The exemption under section 31(1)(a) FOIA is engaged and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed; the Information Commissioner's decision is upheld.