DR STEPHEN WHITEHEAD v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (Part Allowed Environmental Information Regulations 2004) [2016] UKFTT 2015_0132 (GRC) (05 January 2016)

The Tribunal found that part of the requested information falls within the definition of environmental information under the Regulations and should be disclosed, while other parts are exempt or not covered.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2016] UKFTT 2015_0132 (GRC)
Parties: Applicant: Dr Stephen Whitehead; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 05 January 2016
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome: part allowed
Legal Topics: Environmental Information Regulations 2004, Freedom of Information, Disclosure of Environmental Information

Information Law Environmental Law Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Freedom of Information Disclosure of 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

Dr Stephen Whitehead

Applicant

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

Court Disposition

part allowed

Orders

The Information Commissioner is ordered to require disclosure of the specified environmental information to the applicant.

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 Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.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