Timandeep Singh Gill v Information Commissioner & Anor

Timandeep Singh Gill v Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's requests, viewed in the context of previous dealings, volume, and nature of correspondence, imposed an undue and disproportionate burden on Kent Police's resources. The requests were part of a pattern likely to continue, primarily served the Appellant's private interest, and had limited public value. The high bar for vexatiousness was met, making the requests a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of FOIA.

Parties
Appellant: Gill; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Chief Constable of Kent Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information Act, Vexatious Requests, Public Authority Resources
Information Rights Administrative Law Freedom of Information Act Vexatious Requests Public Authority Resources

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

Gill

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Chief Constable of Kent Police

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requests made by the Appellant to Kent Police were vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner was correct to uphold Kent Police's refusal based on section 14(1) FOIA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's requests, viewed in the context of previous dealings, volume, and nature of correspondence, imposed an undue and disproportionate burden on Kent Police's resources. The requests were part of a pattern likely to continue, primarily served the Appellant's private interest, and had limited public value. The high bar for vexatiousness was met, making the requests a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of FOIA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No steps required; Commissioner’s Decision Notice upheld