NatureScot (Correspondence and discussions regarding the sheep on St Kilda) [2025] ScotIC 280_2025 (28 November 2025)

The Commissioner determined whether the exemptions claimed by NatureScot were valid and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed any exemption.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] ScotIC 280_2025
Parties: Respondent: NatureScot; Applicant: Applicant (unnamed)
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 28 November 2025
Procedural Posture: Freedom of Information Appeal / Decision by Scottish Information Commissioner
Outcome: Partially allowed
Legal Topics: Freedom of Information, Environmental Information

Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Environmental Information

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

NatureScot

Respondent

Applicant (unnamed)

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Appeal / Decision by Scottish Information Commissioner

Legal Issues

1 Whether NatureScot was required to disclose correspondence and discussions regarding the sheep on St Kilda under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner determined whether the exemptions claimed by NatureScot were valid and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed any exemption.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

NatureScot is required to disclose certain correspondence and discussions regarding the sheep on St Kilda, except for information lawfully withheld under valid exemptions.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.