Dixon v Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 1464 (GRC) (03 December 2025)

Dixon v Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 1464 (GRC) (03 December 2025)

The University was entitled to aggregate the Appellant's requests with other similar requests under Regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations, and the estimated cost of compliance exceeded the statutory limit, justifying refusal under section 12(2) of FOIA. The University complied with its duty to provide advice and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 1464 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: William Dixon; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: University of Durham
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Aggregation of Requests, Cost Limit Exemption, Advice and Assistance Duty
Information Rights Administrative Law Freedom of Information Aggregation of Requests Cost Limit Exemption Advice and Assistance Duty

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Dixon

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

University of Durham

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University was entitled to aggregate the Appellant's requests under Regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the University was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the Appellant's requests
  3. 3 Whether the University complied with its duty under section 16 of FOIA to provide advice and assistance

Ratio Decidendi

The University was entitled to aggregate the Appellant's requests with other similar requests under Regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations, and the estimated cost of compliance exceeded the statutory limit, justifying refusal under section 12(2) of FOIA. The University complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of FOIA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No further steps required by the University
  • Decision Notice upheld