Hindocha v Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 308 (GRC) (11 March 2025)

Hindocha v Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 308 (GRC) (11 March 2025)

The Tribunal found that UCL was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) FOIA to withhold the Environmental Investigation report, as disclosure would likely prejudice the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Tribunal accepted that the Qualified Person's opinion was reasonable and that the public interest balance favoured maintaining the exemptions, given the sensitive nature of the material, explicit assurances of confidentiality, and the risk of a chilling effect on future investigations. The Tribunal also found that section 40(2) FOIA applied to the interview details, as...

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 308 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: Mukesh Hindocha; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: University College London
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 March 2025
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 36 Exemption, Section 40 Exemption, Section 41 Exemption, Public Interest Test, Personal Data, Confidential Information
Information Law Administrative Law Data Protection Freedom of Information Act 2000 Section 36 Exemption Section 40 Exemption Section 41 Exemption Public Interest Test +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mukesh Hindocha

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

University College London

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UCL was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), and 40(2) FOIA to refuse disclosure of the Environmental Investigation report and interview details.
  2. 2 Whether the public interest balance favoured maintaining the exemptions under section 36 FOIA.
  3. 3 Whether the requested interview information constituted personal data exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) FOIA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that UCL was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) FOIA to withhold the Environmental Investigation report, as disclosure would likely prejudice the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Tribunal accepted that the Qualified Person's opinion was reasonable and that the public interest balance favoured maintaining the exemptions, given the sensitive nature of the material, explicit assurances of confidentiality, and the risk of a chilling effect on future investigations. The Tribunal also found that section 40(2) FOIA applied to the interview details, as...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner dated 29 August 2023 is upheld.
  • No order for disclosure is made.