Swift v The Information Commissioner & Highways England (Allowed : Freedom of Information Act 2000)

Factual and Procedural Background

This decision concerns an appeal brought under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA") against the Information Commissioner's decision upholding a refusal to disclose information. The appellant, referred to as Plaintiff, submitted multiple requests to a public authority, Company A, concerning charges payable to contracted companies for repairs following accidents. Company A refused the Plaintiff's requests, citing that they were vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA.

The Plaintiff's history included 24 requests or internal review requests from January 2016 to mid-2017, many related to the same issues of costs and alleged irregularities. Company A struggled to manage the volume and nature of the requests, which were sometimes directed at multiple staff members. The Plaintiff also encouraged other members of the public to make similar requests through a website he operated. The Information Commissioner issued a Decision Notice upholding Company A's refusal on 28 March 2018, leading to this appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's request for information was correctly determined to be vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA.
2. Whether the burden imposed on the public authority by the volume and nature of the requests justified refusal.
3. The proper application of the legal principles established in Dransfield and related case law regarding vexatious requests.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff asserted a serious and genuine concern regarding transparency and suspected collusion and fraud involving Company A and contractors.
• He argued that the requests aimed to put an end to alleged illegality and unfair charging practices.
• The Plaintiff provided evidence of alleged malfeasance and legal proceedings challenging damages, asserting the scale of wrongdoing justified the volume of requests.
• He maintained that annotating requests on his website did not prejudice the requests or their consideration.

Information Commissioner's Arguments

• The Commissioner acknowledged the legitimate public interest but found the Plaintiff's requests to be frequent, overlapping, and persistent, sometimes involving other individuals encouraged by the Plaintiff.
• The volume and nature of requests caused a disproportionate burden on Company A's resources.
• Company A was entitled to conserve resources and draw a line under correspondence with the Plaintiff.
• The Commissioner criticized Company A for poor handling of internal reviews and communication but upheld the refusal on vexatiousness grounds.

Public Authority's Arguments

• Company A did not accept the Plaintiff's motivation as necessarily good but emphasized that motive alone does not determine vexatiousness.
• They highlighted the high frequency of requests—24 in 18 months and 57 since 2013—mostly on the same subject.
• Company A claimed to have provided information in response to previous requests.
• The Plaintiff's conduct was described as obsessive and harassing, including repeated calls and emails to staff, recording calls without permission, and causing personal distress to employees.
• Company A identified other requesters associated with the Plaintiff, increasing the total number of related requests to 175 since 2013.
• Company A maintained that the cumulative burden justified refusal under section 14 FOIA.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal applied a holistic approach, guided by the principles established in Dransfield and subsequent case law, to determine whether the Plaintiff's request was vexatious. It considered four broad themes: burden on the public authority, motive of the requester, value or serious purpose of the request, and any harassment or distress caused to staff.

Regarding burden, while Company A faced numerous requests and communications, the Tribunal found that given the size, resources, and responsibilities of Company A, the burden was not unduly onerous. The Tribunal noted Company A's failure to adequately address or respond to many requests and that the burden was partly due to inadequate handling.

The Plaintiff's motive was found to be serious, genuine, and informed, with a high degree of public interest. The requests aimed to uncover potential fraud and misfeasance, which the Tribunal recognized as a legitimate purpose.

The Tribunal did not accept that the Plaintiff's conduct amounted to harassment or distress sufficient to justify refusal under section 14. The requests were not offensive or intemperate, and any distress was attributed to Company A's inadequate responses rather than the Plaintiff's behaviour.

The Tribunal rejected the view that the frequency or overlapping nature of the requests rendered them vexatious, especially given their relevance and the Plaintiff's role in assisting others. It also found no evidence that the Plaintiff was acting in concert with others to an extent justifying refusal.

Balancing the public interest in the information against resource implications, the Tribunal concluded that the request was not a manifestly unjustified or improper use of FOIA.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal's final decision was to ALLOW THE APPEAL, concluding that the Plaintiff's request was not vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA.

As a result, the public authority, Company A, was ordered to reconsider the request and provide the information sought or respond relying on appropriate FOIA exemptions consistent with FOIA principles.

The decision clarifies that a high volume of requests with a legitimate and serious purpose, supported by public interest, should not be deemed vexatious solely on the basis of frequency or burden, particularly where the public authority's handling of requests is inadequate. No new precedent was set, but the ruling reinforces the importance of a holistic and balanced approach in vexatious request assessments.