George Green v The Information Commissioner & Anor

George Green v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the exemptions under sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of the FOIA were properly engaged, and that the public interest in maintaining a safe space for policy development and protecting commercial interests outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The extent and nature of information already disclosed was sufficient to satisfy transparency aims, and no error of law was found in the Commissioner’s exercise of discretion.

Parties
Appellant: George Greenwood; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: HM Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Government Policy, Commercial Interests, Lobbying Transparency, Cryptoasset Regulation
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Government Policy Commercial Interests Lobbying Transparency Cryptoasset Regulation

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Greenwood

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

HM Treasury

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HM Treasury and the Information Commissioner correctly applied exemptions under sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold information relating to meetings and correspondence with Binance.
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in transparency and accountability outweighs the public interest in maintaining a safe space for policy development and protecting commercial interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the exemptions under sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of the FOIA were properly engaged, and that the public interest in maintaining a safe space for policy development and protecting commercial interests outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The extent and nature of information already disclosed was sufficient to satisfy transparency aims, and no error of law was found in the Commissioner’s exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals EA/2023/0444 & 0445 are dismissed.
  • No further disclosure of withheld information is ordered.