1. FS50840105

    The complainant requested information from the University of Bath (the University) regarding communications between the University and Bath Rugby Club about Bath Rugby’s temporary stadium plans. The University refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps as a result of this decision.
  2. FS50870253

    The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking a copy of a particular letter dating from 1997 between the British High Commissioner in Wellington and the Cook Islands Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs. The FCO explained that it could not locate the requested letter. The complainant argued that it was likely that the document in question would still be held by the FCO. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the FCO does not hold the requested letter.
  3. FS50817650

    The complainant requested a copy of the information held for the last six month period of the file series MISC 13 Cabinet Committee on Animal Rights Activists. The public authority withheld the information relying on the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a), (b) and 31(1)(a), (b), (g) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(b).
  4. FS50832982

    The complainant requested a copy of the minutes of Ministerial committee meetings on Animal Rights Activists from 2003. The public authority withheld the minutes held relying on the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(b).
  5. FS50872328

    The complainant has requested information about a local building development. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (‘TWBC’) disclosed some information, but said that it was not required to comply with the request on the grounds that it was manifestly unreasonable within the meaning of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that TWBC was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.  She also decided that the level of advice and assistance provided by TWBC complied with the requirements of regulation 9(1) of the EIR.  However, she found that because TWBC failed to specify to the complainant the EIR exception under which it was refusing the request, or to explain to him its consideration of the public interest, TWBC breached regulations 14(3)(a) and (b) of the EIR.