Philip Swift v Information Commissioner & Anor

Philip Swift v Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found, applying previous decisions and on the evidence, that National Highways did not hold the requested 'averaged rates' information at the relevant date, nor was it held by BBMM on its behalf. The figures were BBMM's internal pricing information used to bill National Highways, and there was no evidence of a contractual right or obligation for BBMM to hold the information on behalf of National Highways. No material new evidence justified departing from previous findings.

Parties
Appellant: Philip Swift; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: National Highways (formerly Highways England)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2022
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Disclosure of Information, Statutory Interpretation, Res Judicata
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Disclosure of Information Statutory Interpretation Res Judicata

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Swift

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

National Highways (formerly Highways England)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether National Highways or BBMM held the requested 'averaged rates' information at the relevant date under FOIA
  2. 2 Whether previous tribunal findings on the same issue should be followed or departed from
  3. 3 Whether BBMM held the information on behalf of National Highways for FOIA purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found, applying previous decisions and on the evidence, that National Highways did not hold the requested 'averaged rates' information at the relevant date, nor was it held by BBMM on its behalf. The figures were BBMM's internal pricing information used to bill National Highways, and there was no evidence of a contractual right or obligation for BBMM to hold the information on behalf of National Highways. No material new evidence justified departing from previous findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed