Mark Boyce v Information Commissioner & Anor

Mark Boyce v Information Commissioner & Anor

Request C was not manifestly unjustified or an inappropriate use of FOIA, had a serious purpose, and there was insufficient evidence of burden, harassment, or distress. The appeal is allowed as the refusal was not in accordance with the law.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Boyce; Respondent: Information Commissioner; Respondent: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Determination
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Vexatious Requests, Public Authority Disclosure, Internal Review Processes

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

Mark Boyce

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Determination

  1. 1 Whether Request C was vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA
  2. 2 Whether the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was entitled to refuse the request
  3. 3 Application of Dransfield factors to the request

Ratio Decidendi

Request C was not manifestly unjustified or an inappropriate use of FOIA, had a serious purpose, and there was insufficient evidence of burden, harassment, or distress. The appeal is allowed as the refusal was not in accordance with the law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision Notice IC-143337-G9Z0 is not in accordance with the law.
  • The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman must issue a fresh response to Mr Boyce’s request for information dated 12 August 2021 which does not rely on section 14(1) FOIA within 35 days of the date of promulgation of this Decision Notice.