Steven Thomas v Information Commissioner

Steven Thomas v Information Commissioner

The appellant did not raise any public interest arguments sufficient to outweigh the in-built public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege, and the withheld information related to live legal matters, increasing the public interest in withholding. The Tribunal found no realistic prospect of success and struck out the proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Steven Thomas; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Strike Out Application
Outcome
struck out
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest, Strike Out Procedure
Information Rights Administrative Law Freedom of Information Legal Professional Privilege Public Interest Strike Out Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Thomas

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cheltenham Borough Council was entitled to withhold information under section 42 FOIA
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider public exclusion from Council meetings

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not raise any public interest arguments sufficient to outweigh the in-built public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege, and the withheld information related to live legal matters, increasing the public interest in withholding. The Tribunal found no realistic prospect of success and struck out the proceedings.

Court Disposition

struck out

Orders

  • The proceedings are struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) because there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding.