Facts
Journalists requested detailed information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about claims by MPs for accommodation expenses under the Additional Costs Allowance. The requests were refused. The Information Commissioner required disclosure of a breakdown into expense categories. The Information Tribunal ordered wider disclosure, subject to specified redactions. The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons appealed.
Issue
Did the tribunal make an error of law in deciding that disclosure was compatible with the data protection principles, despite the MPs’ expectations of privacy and their security concerns?
Decision
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals. The court’s jurisdiction under section 59 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was confined to points of law. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that the disclosure was necessary for the legitimate interest in accountability for public spending, and that the privacy and security concerns did not outweigh that interest on the evidence.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The tribunal’s order allowed limited redactions, including for particular security risks. The court stressed that the conclusion depended on the evidence about the system at the time. It did not rule on the merits of the allowance scheme or the propriety of any individual claim.
Reported citations: [2009] 3 All ER 403, [2009] 3 All ER 403 (DC)
Source: Full judgment
