Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The tribunal dismissed joined FOIA appeals about ministerial interests and media-handling emails, holding section 36 exemptions were engaged and justified.
The Tribunal allowed the FOIA appeal in part, rejecting s31(1)(g) with s31(2)(b) but upholding refusal under s31(1)(g) with s31(2)(j), s36, s40(2) and s41.
Confidential Prospective Adopters v BM & Ors [2026] EWHC 907 (Fam) (17 April 2026)
The High Court refused disclosure of the full Annex A report in an adoption case, holding that confidentiality and the child’s welfare outweighed the mother’s request at the leave stage.
The High Court refused a mother’s bid for full disclosure of a confidential Annex A adoption report before her leave-to-oppose application was decided.
The First-tier Tribunal allowed Oxfordshire County Council’s appeal by consent and substituted the Commissioner’s decision notice to permit reliance on EIR regulation 12(5)(e).
The Upper Tribunal granted a reporting restrictions order protecting the identities of alleged complainants and related individuals in proceedings involving Mr Odey.
Expedition is ordered because the allegations are of utmost seriousness, there is objective urgency, and delay would prejudice the administration of justice. The appropriate jurisdiction is the High Court (Chancery Division) rather than the ICC due to the nature of the allegations and scheduling considerations.
Source excerpt
Section 41(1) FOIA applies to information in the Burlington Report obtained from the whistleblower and others, but not to material generated internally or not derived from another person. Section 40(2) FOIA applies to personal data within the Report, but the Council's redactions were overly broad and must be limited to only what is necessary to protect personal data. For most of the confidential information, the Council would have a public interest defence to disclosure, except for certain parts identified in the confidential Annex. The Council failed to adequately demonstrate that no other i…
Source excerpt
The summary judgment and jurisdiction applications must be adjourned because the PII and confidentiality applications consumed almost two days, leaving insufficient time for the complex factual and legal issues raised. All parties ultimately agreed adjournment was inevitable. The applications require a wide-ranging inquiry and cannot be fairly or realistically heard within the remaining time. Adjournment is consistent with the overriding objective and interests of justice.
Source excerpt
The exception under EIR 12(5)(d) was not engaged because neither the Council nor the Commissioner demonstrated that, at the time of the request, disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of pre-application proceedings that had concluded years earlier. The adverse effect criterion was not met, and thus the Commissioner's decision was wrong in law.
Source excerpt
Explore more
