G Boswell v The Information Commissioner & Anor

G Boswell v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The tribunal found that, at the relevant time, the burden of the request, even in the context of the related course of dealings, was significant but not disproportionate. The appellant's persistence had not yet become unreasonable, there was no inappropriate motive, and the request had a serious purpose and value. The request did not meet the high threshold of vexatiousness under section 14(1) FOIA. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request.

Parties
Appellant: G Boswell; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Office for National Statistics
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (information Rights) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Vexatious Requests, Section 14 FOIA, Subject Access Requests, Data Protection
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Vexatious Requests Section 14 FOIA Subject Access Requests Data Protection

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G Boswell

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Office for National Statistics

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (information Rights) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the request for information made by the appellant on 25 May 2022 was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
  2. 2 Whether the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse compliance with the request

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that, at the relevant time, the burden of the request, even in the context of the related course of dealings, was significant but not disproportionate. The appellant's persistence had not yet become unreasonable, there was no inappropriate motive, and the request had a serious purpose and value. The request did not meet the high threshold of vexatiousness under section 14(1) FOIA. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The public authority must issue a fresh response to the request made on 25 May 2022 which does not rely on section 14(1) FOIA.
  • The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision.