Rune Dybedal v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Rune Dybedal v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Northumbria Police was entitled to rely on section 42(1) FOIA to withhold the legal advice as it was confidential communication between lawyer and client for the purpose of legal advice, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. None of the appellant's arguments were sufficient to override the strong inherent public interest in legal professional privilege.

Parties
Appellant: Rune Dybedal; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Appeal / Appeal Determination on the Papers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Test, Disclosure of Legal Advice
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Legal Professional Privilege Public Interest Test Disclosure of Legal Advice

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rune Dybedal

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Chief Constable of Northumbria Police

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Appeal / Appeal Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Northumbria Police was entitled to rely on section 42(1) FOIA (legal professional privilege) to withhold legal advice from disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Northumbria Police was entitled to rely on section 42(1) FOIA to withhold the legal advice as it was confidential communication between lawyer and client for the purpose of legal advice, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. None of the appellant's arguments were sufficient to override the strong inherent public interest in legal professional privilege.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed