Coombs v Information Commissioner & Anor [2023] UKFTT 264 (GRC) (07 March 2023)

Coombs v Information Commissioner & Anor [2023] UKFTT 264 (GRC) (07 March 2023)

The s.43(2) FOIA exemption is engaged because disclosure of raw test results would likely prejudice the commercial interests of the University of Cambridge by undermining its USP and business model. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure, as there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and transparency arguments do not override commercial harm. The request is not formally determined as vexatious, but repeated requests place significant burden on staff.

Citation
[2023] UKFTT 264 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: James Coombs; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The University of Cambridge
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 March 2023
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Commercial Interests Exemption, Public Interest Balancing, Vexatious Requests
Information Rights Administrative Law Freedom of Information Act 2000 Commercial Interests Exemption Public Interest Balancing Vexatious Requests

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Coombs

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The University of Cambridge

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.43(2) FOIA exemption is engaged for raw test results
  2. 2 Whether public interest in maintaining exemption outweighs public interest in disclosure
  3. 3 Whether request is vexatious under s.14 FOIA

Ratio Decidendi

The s.43(2) FOIA exemption is engaged because disclosure of raw test results would likely prejudice the commercial interests of the University of Cambridge by undermining its USP and business model. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure, as there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and transparency arguments do not override commercial harm. The request is not formally determined as vexatious, but repeated requests place significant burden on staff.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed