![[2024] UKUT 178 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Legislative background
Legislative background
The general right of access to information held by public authorities under section 1(1)(b) of FOIA is subject to the provisions of section 2 (section 1(2)).
Section 2 of FOIA gives effect to the various exemptions from disclosure provided for in Part II of the Act. Unless a provision confers absolute exemption from disclosure, section 2(2) provides:
In respect of any information which is exempt information by virtue of any provision of Part II, section 1(1)(b) does not apply if or to the extent that –
…(b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”
Section 42(1) of FOIA, which is within Part II of the Act, provides that “information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege…could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information”. It is not disputed that the withheld information is exempt information under section 42(1).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal
- If either party wishes to rely on any further written evidence or submissions, these are to be received by the First-tier Tribunal within one month of the date on which this decision is issued
- Directions (3) and (4) above may be varied by direction given by the First-tier Tribunal
- Background
- 14 February 2019, the RSPCA wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive
- 19 February 2019 at 14:19, a Council official emailed DEFRA
- 19 February 2019 at 15:07, a DEFRA official responded by email to the Council’s email of the same date
- 20 February 2019, a Council official emailed Mr Dally
- The Information Commissioner’s decision
- First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- disclosure of old legal advice would not assist in resolving any problems at MDH
- Legislative background
- Environmental protection legislation (stray dogs)
- Grounds of appeal
- The Commissioner’s arguments
- General principles
- Specific arguments
- even if the Upper Tribunal were to find a public interest in disclosure, that would not invalidate the Tribunal’s conclusion that disclosure would “erode the principle of legal professional privilege”
- Appellant’s arguments
- the supposed third formulation of the alleged misrepresentation – the Council said that the previous legal advice related to the 2018 Regulations rather than the 1963 Act regime – is styled by the Com
- Ground 1
- MDH continued to operate without a license despite kennelling stray dogs for up to 24 hours
- another local authority has required Animal Wardens Ltd, which sub-contracts with MDH, to seek a licence the Charity Commission took enforcement action to address a conflict of interests between Animal Wardens Ltd and MDH
- Closed session of hearing
- Conclusions