Jenna Corderoy v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Jenna Corderoy v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that s.35(1)(a) was not engaged as the information did not relate to the formulation or development of government policy. For four paragraphs, s.35(1)(d) was engaged as they were administrative in nature, and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. For the remaining information, s.36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) were engaged based on reasonable Ministerial opinion, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure, given the need for a safe space for free and frank advice on a live issue.

Parties
Appellant: Jenna Corderoy; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Cabinet Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Government Policy Exemptions, Public Interest Test, Ministerial Private Office, Prejudice to Effective Conduct of Public Affairs
Administrative Law Access to Information Freedom of Information Government Policy Exemptions Public Interest Test Ministerial Private Office Prejudice to Effective Conduct of Public Affairs

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jenna Corderoy

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Cabinet Office

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requested information falls within s.35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and/or s.35(1)(d) (operation of Ministerial private office) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and, if so, whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure
  2. 2 Whether, in the alternative, the information is exempt under s.36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and, if so, whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that s.35(1)(a) was not engaged as the information did not relate to the formulation or development of government policy. For four paragraphs, s.35(1)(d) was engaged as they were administrative in nature, and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. For the remaining information, s.36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) were engaged based on reasonable Ministerial opinion, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure, given the need for a safe space for free and frank advice on a live issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed