Martin Baker v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Martin Baker v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's requests were not vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA, as they were targeted, had a serious purpose, and did not impose a disproportionate burden or cause harassment. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in law by upholding the vexatiousness exemption. However, the Tribunal found that section 43(2) FOIA (Commercial Interests) was properly engaged for detailed cost breakdowns, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed disclosure. The Tribunal also found that the council held further information (maintenance instruction) that should be disclosed, and that section 22(1) FOIA was not engaged as there was no intention to...

Parties
Appellant: Martin Baker; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Vexatious Requests, Public Procurement, Transparency, Data Protection
Administrative Law Information Law Public Law Freedom of Information Vexatious Requests Public Procurement Transparency Data Protection

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Baker

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's information requests were vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA
  2. 2 Whether exemptions under sections 22(1), 40(2), and 43(2) FOIA were properly applied
  3. 3 Whether the public authority held the requested information

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's requests were not vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA, as they were targeted, had a serious purpose, and did not impose a disproportionate burden or cause harassment. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in law by upholding the vexatiousness exemption. However, the Tribunal found that section 43(2) FOIA (Commercial Interests) was properly engaged for detailed cost breakdowns, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed disclosure. The Tribunal also found that the council held further information (maintenance instruction) that should be disclosed, and that section 22(1) FOIA was not engaged as there was no intention to...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The Information Commissioner's decisions are set aside as not in accordance with the law.
  • The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames must disclose the maintenance instruction relating to the strip out of the health suite at Pools on the Park by 17 June 2026.