Nigel Harris v The Information Commissioner

Nigel Harris v The Information Commissioner

The Tribunal found that the request was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) FOIA due to the disproportionate burden imposed on the small public authority by the Appellant's repeated and wide-ranging correspondence, the lack of serious purpose in the request, and the personal motivation underlying the request, which detracted from the public interest. The Tribunal adopted the Commissioner's reasoning and found no error in law or discretion.

Parties
Appellant: Nigel Harris; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Decision Notice Under Section 57 FOIA
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Vexatious Requests, Public Authority Obligations
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Vexatious Requests Public Authority Obligations

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Harris

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Decision Notice Under Section 57 FOIA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse the information request as vexatious
  2. 2 Whether the request had a serious purpose or value
  3. 3 Whether the burden on the public authority justified refusal under section 14(1) FOIA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the request was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) FOIA due to the disproportionate burden imposed on the small public authority by the Appellant's repeated and wide-ranging correspondence, the lack of serious purpose in the request, and the personal motivation underlying the request, which detracted from the public interest. The Tribunal adopted the Commissioner's reasoning and found no error in law or discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed