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 partly allowed an EIR appeal against TfL, ordering disclosure of slides 62–73, but otherwise upheld withholding and dismissed the rest.
The Tribunal dismissed linked EIR appeals about planning-enforcement information from Bracknell Forest Borough Council, upholding refusal under regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(d).
The assessed costs were disproportionate in all the circumstances; further reduction to internal communications was warranted, resulting in a proportionate figure.
Source excerpt
XX & Anor v Young & Anor [2025] EWHC 680 (SCCO) (19 March 2025)
Detailed assessment of a quantum-only costs bill, with reductions for administrative work, excessive internal communications, duplication, and unjustified leading counsel.
The requested information is environmental information under EIR, constitutes internal communications as the contractor was embedded within the Council, and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure due to the ongoing planning process and the need for a safe space for internal deliberations.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found that the exceptions for material in the course of completion and confidentiality of proceedings were not engaged because the documents were complete and no further work was anticipated, and there was no clear provision in national law defining the scope of proceedings for confidentiality. The internal communications exception was engaged only for documents not sent to third parties. The public interest in transparency and scrutiny of government decision-making on major environmental issues far outweighed any residual risk from disclosure.
Source excerpt
The claimant failed to demonstrate any real prospect of establishing that the internal email publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation, as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The evidence showed no adverse impact, and the publications were limited and internal. The claims were speculative and lacked substance. The misuse of private information claim did not meet the threshold of seriousness or actionable detriment. The claims were also an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction, as any possible benefit was disproportionate to the costs and…
Source excerpt
The Tribunal allowed an EIR appeal, finding Torridge District Council wrongly withheld an Article 4 Direction report and related information, and ordering disclosure.
Explore more
