Simon Curtin v Information Commissioner & Anor

Simon Curtin v Information Commissioner & Anor

The November Request was a refinement of the August Request and should have been considered under section 12 FOIA; the MOD was entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. For the second appeal, section 23(5) FOIA was properly engaged as an absolute exemption, and the MOD was entitled to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information.

Parties
Appellant: Simon Curtin; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
First appeal allowed; second appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
FOIA Exemptions, National Security, International Relations, Cost of Compliance, Neither Confirm Nor Deny (ncnd), Delay in Disclosure
Administrative Law Freedom of Information FOIA Exemptions National Security International Relations Cost of Compliance Neither Confirm Nor Deny (ncnd) Delay in Disclosure

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 8 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Curtin

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Ministry of Defence

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the information request
  2. 2 Whether section 23(5) FOIA (security bodies) was properly engaged to refuse to confirm or deny holding information
  3. 3 Whether the Information Commissioner and MOD correctly applied exemptions and handled the requests

Ratio Decidendi

The November Request was a refinement of the August Request and should have been considered under section 12 FOIA; the MOD was entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. For the second appeal, section 23(5) FOIA was properly engaged as an absolute exemption, and the MOD was entitled to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information.

Court Disposition

First appeal allowed; second appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • MOD entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA for the first request; no further steps required.
  • MOD entitled to rely on section 23(5) FOIA for the second request; no further steps required.