Paul Cardin v The Information Commissioner

Paul Cardin v The Information Commissioner

The Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) for part 2 of the request, as evidence showed it held at least two ICNIRP safety certificates. The Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) for parts 4 and 5, and regulation 12(4)(b) for parts 1 and 3, due to manifestly unreasonable burden and lack of information held. The public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed disclosure for parts 1 and 3.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Cardin; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Environmental Information Regulations, Freedom of Information, Public Authority Disclosure, Manifestly Unreasonable Requests
Environmental Law Information Rights Environmental Information Regulations Freedom of Information Public Authority Disclosure Manifestly Unreasonable 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Cardin

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR to refuse parts 2, 4, and 5 of the request
  2. 2 Whether the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse parts 1 and 3 of the request
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) for part 2 of the request, as evidence showed it held at least two ICNIRP safety certificates. The Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) for parts 4 and 5, and regulation 12(4)(b) for parts 1 and 3, due to manifestly unreasonable burden and lack of information held. The public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed disclosure for parts 1 and 3.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames must issue a fresh response to part 2 of the request within 28 days, either supplying the information or refusing on grounds other than regulation 12(4)(a).
  • Council entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) for parts 4 and 5.