Henry Dyer v The Information Commissioner & Ors

Henry Dyer v The Information Commissioner & Ors

The Department was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii), and (c) FOIA as the Qualified Persons' opinions were reasonable and within the spectrum of reasonable views. The public interest in maintaining the exemption and protecting the confidentiality essential to ACOBA's function outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The factual error in the Department's information was not material and did not justify further disclosure.

Parties
Appellant: Henry Dyer; 1st Respondent: The Information Commissioner; 2nd Respondent: Department for Business and Trade; 3rd Respondent: Cabinet Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Public Interest Immunity, Confidentiality in Public Administration, Government Transparency
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Public Interest Immunity Confidentiality in Public Administration Government Transparency

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Dyer

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

1st Respondent

Department for Business and Trade

2nd Respondent

Cabinet Office

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department was entitled to withhold information under section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii), and (c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the opinions of the Qualified Persons were reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Department was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii), and (c) FOIA as the Qualified Persons' opinions were reasonable and within the spectrum of reasonable views. The public interest in maintaining the exemption and protecting the confidentiality essential to ACOBA's function outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The factual error in the Department's information was not material and did not justify further disclosure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed