Julian Saunders v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Julian Saunders v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Section 42(1) FOIA was properly engaged because the withheld communications were between SMBC and its external solicitors for the purpose of obtaining legal advice regarding the SAR. The fraud/iniquity exception was not met as there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment or improper conduct in the legal advice process. The public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege outweighed any arguments for disclosure, and there was no compelling justification to override the exemption.

Parties
Appellant: Julian Saunders; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Final Judgment After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Test, Subject Access Requests, Fraud/iniquity Exception
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Legal Professional Privilege Public Interest Test Subject Access Requests Fraud/iniquity Exception

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Saunders

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 42(1) FOIA (legal professional privilege) is properly engaged for withheld communications between SMBC and Howard Kennedy
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the fraud/iniquity exception to legal professional privilege applies

Ratio Decidendi

Section 42(1) FOIA was properly engaged because the withheld communications were between SMBC and its external solicitors for the purpose of obtaining legal advice regarding the SAR. The fraud/iniquity exception was not met as there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment or improper conduct in the legal advice process. The public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege outweighed any arguments for disclosure, and there was no compelling justification to override the exemption.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order for disclosure of the withheld information.