Mark Tully v The Information Commissioner

Mark Tully v The Information Commissioner

On the balance of probabilities, HM Treasury does not hold further information within the scope of the applicant's refined FOIA request beyond what has already been disclosed in redacted format. The redactions made under section 40(2) FOIA were justified, and the Commissioner was entitled to accept HM Treasury's account of its searches and disclosures. There was no error of law in the Commissioner's decision notice.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Tully; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Final Judgment on the Papers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Disclosure Obligations, Scope of Information Requests, Personal Data Redactions, Vexatious Requests
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Disclosure Obligations Scope of Information Requests Personal Data Redactions Vexatious Requests

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Tully

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Final Judgment on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HM Treasury holds further information within the scope of the applicant's refined FOIA request
  2. 2 Whether HM Treasury was entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA to withhold information
  3. 3 Whether the Information Commissioner properly investigated the complaint and applied the correct legal tests

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, HM Treasury does not hold further information within the scope of the applicant's refined FOIA request beyond what has already been disclosed in redacted format. The redactions made under section 40(2) FOIA were justified, and the Commissioner was entitled to accept HM Treasury's account of its searches and disclosures. There was no error of law in the Commissioner's decision notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed