Rogers v Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 1008 (GRC) (21 August 2025)

HSENI did not hold recorded information responsive to the precise scope of part 8 of the FOIA request at the time of refusal; searches were adequate; appeal dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] UKFTT 1008 (GRC)
Parties: Appellant: Malachy Rogers; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 21 August 2025
Procedural Posture: FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal, General Regulatory Chamber, Information Rights
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Disclosure of Recorded Information, Search Adequacy, Conflict of Interest, Law Enforcement Exemption

Freedom of Information Administrative Law Disclosure of Recorded Information Search Adequacy Conflict of Interest Law Enforcement Exemption

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Malachy Rogers

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal, General Regulatory Chamber, Information Rights

Legal Issues

1 Whether HSENI held recorded information responsive to part 8 of the FOIA request
2 Adequacy of HSENI's search for requested information
3 Whether HSENI Officer A or B asked Officer C to collect CCTV footage

Ratio Decidendi

HSENI did not hold recorded information responsive to the precise scope of part 8 of the FOIA request at the time of refusal; searches were adequate; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

No further action required; Decision Notice upheld

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.