David Cleminson v IC (Environmental Information Regulations 2004) [2012] UKFTT EA_2011_0192 (GRC) (22 February 2012)

The Tribunal held that the requested information did not fall within the definition of environmental information under the Regulations and/or was lawfully withheld under the applicable exemptions.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2012] UKFTT EA_2011_0192 (GRC)
Parties: Appellant: David Cleminson; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 22 February 2012
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Environmental Information Regulations 2004, Freedom of Information, Public Access to Environmental Information

Information Law Environmental Law Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Freedom of Information Public Access to 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

David Cleminson

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the requested information falls within the scope of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004
2 Whether the Information Commissioner correctly applied the Regulations in refusing disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the requested information did not fall within the definition of environmental information under the Regulations and/or was lawfully withheld under the applicable exemptions.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

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 Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.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.