Shareb Affiliates Ltd v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Shareb Affiliates Ltd v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Requests 3, 5, 7, and 9 either did not seek recorded information or SETL did not hold relevant recorded information at the time of the request; FOIA does not require creation of new material. SETL correctly relied on s.40(2) to withhold personal data in parts 12 and 13, as disclosure was not necessary or proportionate and would contravene data protection principles.

Parties
Appellant: Shareb Affiliates Ltd; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: SE Trains Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2026
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / Final Determination
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
FOIA S.1(1)(a) Compliance, FOIA S.14(2) Repeat Requests, FOIA S.40(2) Personal Data Exemption, Equality Act 2010 Compliance, Data Retention Obligations
Freedom of Information Data Protection FOIA S.1(1)(a) Compliance FOIA S.14(2) Repeat Requests FOIA S.40(2) Personal Data Exemption Equality Act 2010 Compliance Data Retention Obligations

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shareb Affiliates Ltd

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

SE Trains Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the request are valid FOIA requests and whether SETL held relevant recorded information at the time of the request
  2. 2 Whether SETL correctly relied on FOIA s.40(2) to withhold personal data in parts 12 and 13

Ratio Decidendi

Requests 3, 5, 7, and 9 either did not seek recorded information or SETL did not hold relevant recorded information at the time of the request; FOIA does not require creation of new material. SETL correctly relied on s.40(2) to withhold personal data in parts 12 and 13, as disclosure was not necessary or proportionate and would contravene data protection principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Application to amend grounds of appeal granted
  • No further steps required by SETL or ICO