![[2024] UKUT 195 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
“Three general points”
“Three general points”
The FTT decision’s reasons as regards s43 and prejudice to commercial interests were challenged on much the same grounds as had already been argued:
no viable finding of detriment
no substantial and real harm to commercial interests, likely to occur, is identified
no evidence of any costs associated with a new exam (which is anyway new each year)
the undisclosed information is narrow
no evidence of a major competitor, even at the date of the public authority’s decision; though Evans v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21 establishes that this is the relevant date, it also says that later facts may throw light on earlier decisions – the fact that the competitor later left the market says something about its strength.
Montague v Information Commissioner [2022] UKUT 104 at [24] is cited to the effect that the statutory language “cutting down” the right to information under s1 needs to be “carefully construed. The language of [FOIA] should, where possible, be construed broadly and liberally in the context of FOIA’s statutory purpose to make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities in the interests of greater openness and transparency …”. The grounds state that the FTT decision reasons fail to follow such a construction of FOIA. Why should residents of Buckinghamshire not know about the exam through which their children are admitted to schools they maintain and fund?
- Heading
- The appeal is dismissed
- Outline of the FTT decision’s findings and reasoning
- “Reasons” ground
- “Failure to direct itself according to the law” ground
- “Perverse balance of detriment and public benefit” ground
- “Three general points”
- The Upper Tribunal proceedings
- Summary of law regarding the Upper Tribunal’s “error of law” jurisdiction; and adequacy of reasons
- Discussion
- Conclusions