FT/EA/2024/0195 - [2025] UKFTT 01263 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/EA/2024/0195

FT/EA/2024/0233

Information Rights

Decided without a hearing

Before

JUDGE SAWARD

MEMBER COSGRAVE

MEMBER MURPHY

Between

GANESH SITTAMPALAM

Appellant

and

(1) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

(2) OFFICE OF GAS AND ELECTRICITY MARKETS

Respondents

Decisions: The appeals are allowed in part.

Substituted Decision Notices:

Organisation: Office of Gas and Electricity Markets

Complainant: Ganesh Sittampalam

The Substitute Decisions - IC-281994-M0Y0 and -IC-274273- P0V2

For the reasons set out below:

(1) The public authority was not entitled to rely on sections 31, 41, 43(2) or 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold some of the requested information.

(2) The public authority was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold the names and job titles of the individuals identified in paragraph 3 of the Closed Annex.

(3) The public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold: (a) the contact details of all individuals (b) the names and job titles of individuals identified in paragraph 4 of the Closed Annex, and (c) the details of third parties copied into communications.

(4) Subject to redaction of the details referenced in (3) above, the public authority must disclose the withheld information within the documents listed below to the Appellant within 35 days of the date from when this decision is sent to them.

• Documents 1-6 (excluding 6A being RDA2/030 of the closed bundle)

• Documents 9-16

• Document 18

• Document 20

• Documents 21-25

• Documents 30-32

• Document 36

• Documents 42.1 – 42.7

• Documents 42.12 - 42.13

Document numbers are those identified in the revised table for Exhibit RDA2 to the witness statement of Robert Dominic Alexander.

(5) The public authority was entitled to rely on sections 31, 41, 43(2) or 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the remainder of the withheld information.

(6) Any failure to abide by the terms of the Tribunal’s substituted decision notice may amount to contempt which may, on application, be certified to the Upper Tribunal.

REASONS