Hart v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 935 (GRC) (01 August 2025)

Hart v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 935 (GRC) (01 August 2025)

All requested information falls within the s37(1)(b) exemption; the public interest decisively favours non-disclosure due to the limited value of the material and the need to maintain confidentiality in the honours process. The Cabinet Office complied with its FOIA duties.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 935 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: Amanda Hart; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Cabinet Office
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Act Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Public Interest Exemption, Cabinet Appointments, Honours Process
Information Rights Administrative Law Freedom of Information Public Interest Exemption Cabinet Appointments Honours Process

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Hart

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Cabinet Office

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Act Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Cabinet Office was correct to withhold information relating to the appointment of David Cameron as a Lord under s37(1)(b) FOIA
  2. 2 Whether the public interest favours disclosure or non-disclosure of the requested information
  3. 3 Whether the Cabinet Office complied with its duties under FOIA, including advice and assistance

Ratio Decidendi

All requested information falls within the s37(1)(b) exemption; the public interest decisively favours non-disclosure due to the limited value of the material and the need to maintain confidentiality in the honours process. The Cabinet Office complied with its FOIA duties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No disclosure of requested information
  • No further action required by respondents