Peter Webb v Information Commissioner
The Tribunal found that the volume and pattern of the Appellant's requests constituted a disproportionate and manifestly unjustified use of FOIA, imposing a significant burden on the small Council team. The requests were vexatious by the time of Request One on 11 June 2021 and continued to be so. The Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse all six requests and on section 17(6) FOIA not to issue further refusal notices for Requests Five and Six.
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Webb; Respondent: Information Commissioner
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Freedom of Information, Vexatious Requests, Section 14 FOIA, Section 17(6) FOIA
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Webb
Appellant
Information Commissioner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse to reply to the six requests
- 2 Whether the Council was entitled to rely on section 17(6) FOIA to refuse to provide any refusal notice to the Appellant in relation to Requests Five and Six
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the volume and pattern of the Appellant's requests constituted a disproportionate and manifestly unjustified use of FOIA, imposing a significant burden on the small Council team. The requests were vexatious by the time of Request One on 11 June 2021 and continued to be so. The Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse all six requests and on section 17(6) FOIA not to issue further refusal notices for Requests Five and Six.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment