BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Newman v Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 603 (GRC) (04 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/603.html
Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 603 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 603 (GRC)
Case Reference: EA/2024/0383

First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Information Rights

Heard by: remotely by video conference
Heard on: 8 April 2025
Decision Given On: 04 June 2025

B e f o r e :

TRIBUNAL JUDGE WILSON
TRIBUNAL MEMBER SIVERS
TRIBUNAL MEMBER TAYLOR

____________________

Between:
MARTIN NEWMAN
Appellant
- and -

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
(First Respondent)
and

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
(Second Respondent)

____________________


____________________

HTML VERSION OF DECISION
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Decision: The appeal is Dismissed

    REASONS

    Mode of hearing

  1. The proceedings were held remotely (CVP).  The Appellant was in attendance and represented himself. The First Respondent did not attend and was not represented. The Second Respondent was represented by Mr Darby. The Appellant parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.
  2. Background to Appeal

  3. This appeal is against a decision of the Information Commissioner (the "Commissioner") dated 6 August 2024 (IC-302266-V7P0), the "Decision Notice). The appeal relates to the application of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). It concerns information about the M4 to Dorset Coast connectivity study requested from the Second Respondent (the "Public Authority").
  4. On 7 September 2023, the Appellant wrote to National Highways and requested the following information:
  5. "Please provide me with a full copy of your report, and any associated documents (e.g. appendices, maps and so on), prepared for the Department for Transport concerning the M4 to Dorset Coast Connectivity study".
  6. The Public Authority responded 30 January 2024, confirming it held the information requested. The Public Authority provided ten data maps but withheld reports, refusing the request in reliance of regulation 12(4)(d) EIR because the material was in the course of completion. Upon internal review on 3 April 202 the Public Authority maintained its position.
  7. The Appellant complained to the Commissioner on 19 April 2024. The Commissioner decided that:
  8. a. The National Highways is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold information about the M4 to Dorset coast connectivity study because it is material still in the course of completion; and
    b. the public interest favoured maintaining the exception.

  9. In a Case Management Hearing held on 14 February 2025 the Public Authority applied for an adjournment and indicated that the Minister for Transport may approve the release of the information requested by the Appellant. The Public Authority made a further disclosure to the Appellant on 7 March 2025 in the form of the M4 to Dorset Coast Executive Summary. The Public Authority asserted that following this further disclosure, all the information requested by the Appellant had been disclosed.
  10. The Appeal and Responses

  11. Since the date of appeal the character of this appeal has changed. The Public authority no longer maintains its reliance on the Reg.12(4)(d) exception. The Public authority's position is that all requested information has now been provided.
  12. The Appellant in his emails dated 7 and 11 March 2025 submits that all information has not been disclosed. The Appellant asserts that he did not request an Executive Summary but all information that the Public Authority had "been commissioned by DfT to produce". An Executive Summary at 24 pages cannot be a summary of the glossy brochure at only 16 pages. The Executive summary is indicative that there is a larger full report. This full report has been withheld. The Appellant submits that this full report falls within the scope of the request. The Appellant submits that it is in the public interest that this full report is disclosed.
  13. In response the Public Authority submits that whilst there are technical and source materials that informed the work carried out, there is no larger report that would fall within the scope of the original request. No other report beyond the Executive Summary and the Brochure provided to the Appellant was prepared for the Department of Transport. In addition, the Public Authority indicated that the scope of the request as described in the Appellant's email dated 11 March 2025 was different to the original request. The key difference being that the wording "prepared for" was used in the original request and "commissioned by" used in the Appellant's emails. At the hearing the Appellant helpfully clarified that the use of the words "commissioned by" was not an attempt to expand or change the scope of the original request.
  14. Legal Framework

  15. Public authorities are under a general duty under the EIR to disclose environmental information where it is requested:
  16. The relevant provisions of EIR are as follows.
  17. "Duty to make available environmental information on request

    5. – (1) Subject to paragraph (3) and in accordance with paragraphs (2), (4), (5) and (6) and the remaining provisions of this Part and Part 3 of these Regulations, a public authority that holds environmental information shall make it available on request.

    (2) Information shall be made available under paragraph (1) as soon as possible and no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request.

    (3) To the extent that the information requested includes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject, paragraph (1) shall not apply to those personal data.

    (4) For the purposes of paragraph (1), where the information made available is compiled by or on behalf of the public authority it shall be up to date, accurate and comparable, so far as the public authority reasonably believes."

    Issues and evidence

  18. The issues in this appeal are whether:
  19. a. the Public Authority has disclosed the information requested such that it is has satisfied the request or whether additional information is held that falls within the scope of request that has not been disclosed.
    b. if further information is held does the public interest weigh in favour of disclosure or in favour of maintaining the exemption.

  20. By way of evidence and submissions we had the following, all of which we have taken into account in making our decision:
  21. a. An agreed bundle of open documents (83 PDF Pages).
    b. A closed bundle (42 pages)
    c. The Appellant's and Public Authority's oral submissions at the hearing.
    d. The Public Authority's Skeleton Arguments
    e. The Appellant's emails dated 7 and 11 March 2025.

    The Hearing

  22. At the hearing the Public Authority confirmed that the material in the closed bundle had been disclosed the Appellant. Accordingly, there was no requirement for a Rule 14 Order or a closed session.
  23. As set out above, the Appellant confirmed that the use of the wording "commissioned by" was not an attempt to expand or change the scope of the original request.
  24. Discussion and Conclusions

  25. In accordance with section 58 of FOIA, our role is to consider whether the Commissioner's Decision Notice was in accordance with the law. As set out in section 58(2), we may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based. This means that we can review all of the evidence provided to us and make our own decision.
  26. Does the Public Authority Hold Information within the Scope of Request that has not been disclosed.

  27. The Appellant asserts that the document titled M4 to Dorset Coast: Strategic Connectivity Study Executive Summary is indicative that there is a larger report. The Appellant asserts that by its nature an executive summary must summarise a larger document. The Appellant asserts that this is evidence that there is larger report that has not been disclosed. The Appellant submits that a 20 page executive summary cannot be a summary of a shorter 16 page report. In the alternative the Appellant submitted that the source materials which informed the executive summary fell within the scope of the request.
  28. The Public Authority submits that there is no larger report as claimed by the Appellant that would fall within the scope of the original request. In oral submissions, in response to Questions from the Tribunal, the Public Authority indicated that the Executive Summary was a summary of technical and source materials rather than an executive summary of a larger report. The technical and source materials were not prepared for the Department of Transport. As such, these materials do not all within the scope of the request as they were not "prepared for the Department of Transport". The Public Authority confirmed that there is no other report beyond the Executive Summary and the 16 page document titled "M4 to Dorset Coast: Strategic connectivity study December 2023" which fell within the scope of the request, both of which have been disclosed to the Appellant. Accordingly the Public Authority submits that the request has been met and no other information within the scope of the request exists.
  29. We agree. The public authority's explanation that the Executive Summary document is a summary of technical and source materials rather than a summary of a larger report is plausible. This explanation is supported by the content of the Executive Summary itself. For example at A9 of the closed bundle the executive summary refers to technical source data. There is no evidence that undermines the Public Authority's assertion that the two documents are the only documents delivered to the Department for Transport. For all these reasons, we find that the Executive Summary and the 16 page Report comprised in the closed bundle are the totality of the documents delivered to the Department for Transport.
  30. The question is then whether the source materials that were used to inform the Executive Summary fall within the scope of the request. In our judgment they do not.
  31. The original request with (emphasis added ) is as follows:
  32. "Please provide me with a full copy of your report, and any associated documents (e.g. appendices, maps and so on), prepared for the Department for Transport concerning the M4 to Dorset Coast Connectivity study"

  33. In our judgment the report referred to in the request is the 16 page document titled "M4 to Dorset Coast: Strategic connectivity study December 2023". In our judgment the Executive Summary is an associated document as it explains the methodology and use of technical and source data involved in finalising recommendations. Both documents have been produced for the Department for Transport. However, in our judgment it is too wide an interpretation of the scope of the request to infer that any source or technical data used or referred to in the Executive Summary or 16 page Report falls within the scope of the request. Firstly there is no evidence to suggest that these source materials were prepared for the Department for Transport as opposed to being prepared for third parties but used by the Public Authority to inform the 16 page report and Executive Summary prepared for the Department for Transport. Secondly, in our judgment within the context of the request, associated documents should be understood within the context of the examples given, that is appendices and maps. In our judgment it is clear that the request is referring to documents that are outside the main body of the report but are nonetheless essential to understand its content. Whilst we accept that the executive summary falls within that category, we are not satisfied that technical and source data falls within that category when any such relevant information is summarised and considered within the executive summary.
  34. It follows from all that we have said above that the technical and source data upon which the Executive Summary and 16 page report are based falls outside the scope of the request. We are satisfied that the information prepared by the Public Authority for the Department for Transport concerning the M4 to Dorset Coast Connectivity study is fully comprised within the Executive Summary and 16 page report titled M4 to Dorset Coast: Strategic connectivity study December 2023, both of which have now been disclosed to the Appellant. Accordingly, we find that all information relevant to the request has been disclosed and the Public Authority has satisfied the request in full.
  35. For all the reasons set out above, we dismiss the appeal.
  36. Signed G Wilson

    Judge of the First tier Tribunal

    Date: 28 May 2025

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010