Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 1084
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE – FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – JURISDICTION
Facts
Numerous requests were made to the House of Commons under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for detailed breakdowns of some MPs’ claims under the Additional Costs Allowances scheme. These requests were refused on the basis that to allow them would infringe Parliamentary Privilege. At first instance, the Tribunal overturned this decision and directed that the information requested should be disclosed. The House of Commons appealed to the High Court.
Issues
The issues were: firstly, whether the court had the jurisdiction to review the decision; and secondly whether the decision to refuse the requests were substantively flawed, particularly in that it had failed to give sufficient consideration to the expectations of MPs as to what information would be made publicly available.
Decision/Outcome
On the jurisdiction issue, the Court held that although it did not have jurisdiction to revisit the findings of fact which had been made by the tribunal, it was able to consider whether the decision was legally flawed.
Substantively, the Court held that the decision of the Tribunal was not legally flawed and should be upheld. The exemption claimed was not available in this case, as the information claimed did not in fact infringe Parliamentary privilege. The issue of redactions had been addressed by the Tribunal, and this was sufficient to address any legitimate concerns about the privacy of MPs relied on by the House of Commons. Further, MPs had been made aware of the coming into force of the 2000 Act and should have been aware of what information might be disclosed under its terms.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the decision in Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 1084 (Admin). The legal principles described remain correct. The case is significant as an early judicial authority on the intersection of parliamentary privilege and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and it has not been overruled. Readers should note, however, that the wider political and regulatory context has evolved substantially since 2008. The MPs’ expenses scandal that followed in 2009 led to the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which now administers and publishes MPs’ expenses data proactively. As a result, the practical significance of the case has diminished, though its legal analysis of parliamentary privilege and FOIA jurisdiction retains doctrinal relevance. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 itself remains in force and unamended in the respects relevant to this case.
