Oliver Price v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Oliver Price v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Section 41(1) FOIA applies to information in the Burlington Report obtained from the whistleblower and others, but not to material generated internally or not derived from another person. Section 40(2) FOIA applies to personal data within the Report, but the Council's redactions were overly broad and must be limited...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Oliver Price; 1st Respondent: The Information Commissioner; 2nd Respondent: Birmingham City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (information Rights) / Final Decision (decided on the Papers)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Confidentiality, Whistleblowing, Public Interest Defence
Administrative Law Information Law Data Protection Freedom of Information Personal Data Confidentiality Whistleblowing Public Interest Defence

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Price

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

1st Respondent

Birmingham City Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (information Rights) / Final Decision (decided on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 41(1) FOIA (information provided in confidence) applies to the Burlington Report and related communications
  2. 2 Whether section 40(2) FOIA (personal data) applies to parts of the Report
  3. 3 Whether other in-scope information was held by the Council at the time of the request

Ratio Decidendi

Section 41(1) FOIA applies to information in the Burlington Report obtained from the whistleblower and others, but not to material generated internally or not derived from another person. Section 40(2) FOIA applies to personal data within the Report, but the Council's redactions were overly broad and must be limited to only what is necessary to protect personal data. For most of the confidential information, the Council would have a public interest defence to disclosure, except for certain parts identified in the confidential Annex. The Council failed to adequately demonstrate that no other in-scope communications were held and must conduct further searches.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • No publication or revelation of information likely to identify the Whistleblower unless otherwise ordered.
  • The 2nd Respondent (Birmingham City Council) must, within 35 days, redact the Burlington Report as set out in the decision and Annex and provide the redacted version to the Appellant.