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 First-tier Tribunal dismissed an EIR appeal for a consultant’s report on Thanet Parkway station costs, upholding commercial confidentiality and rejecting the emissions argument.
The Tribunal dismissed Mr Gallagher’s appeal, finding on the balance of probabilities that Hart District Council had now disclosed all information within scope of his EIR request.
The Tribunal allowed Tarmac Trading Ltd’s appeal and held that blast location and MIC data for quarry blasts had to be disclosed under the EIR.
The tribunal dismissed Homeseptic Ltd’s appeal, holding that its request for an unprotected groundwater risk assessment spreadsheet was manifestly unreasonable under EIR regulation 12(4)(b).
The Tribunal upheld most of an EIR refusal over planning-application communications, finding adequate searches and valid redactions, but ordered disclosure of 8 words from one redaction.
Disclosure of the withheld information would adversely affect the course of justice due to legal advice privilege, and the public interest in maintaining the exception substantially outweighs the public interest in disclosure, especially as the matter was still 'live' at the relevant date.
Source excerpt
The draft Addendum Report was subject to legal professional privilege as it formed part of confidential communications seeking legal advice. Disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice and undermine the safe space for decision-making. Both regulation 12(5)(b) and 12(4)(d) EIR exemptions were engaged, and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemptions.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal dismissed an appeal against an Information Commissioner decision, holding that a repeated EIR request about parking on a highway verge was manifestly unreasonable.
The request was manifestly unreasonable due to its breadth and the significant burden it would place on Defra's resources, with compliance estimated at over 122-300 hours. The public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosure, especially given the volume of information already in the public domain and the lack of incremental value from further disclosure. Human rights arguments under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR are not relevant to the EIR public interest test.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal set aside a First-tier Tribunal strike-out and restored Mrs Farnsworth’s appeal on an environmental information request about a planning report.
Explore more
