Husbands v Information Commissioner [2007] UKIT EA_2006_0048

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048

Information Tribunal Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Decision Promulgated 19^th March 2007

BEFORE

INFORMATION TRIBUNAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Chris Ryan

and

LAY MEMBERS

Andrew Whetnall

Gareth Jones

Between

Dr CHRISTOPHER T HUSBANDS

Appellant

and

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Decision

Following our preliminary decision dated 16 February 2007, and in the
light of further communications received from the parties, the Tribunal
has decided to substitute the following decision notice in place of the
decision notice dated 5 July 2006. The following action, required in light

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048

of the decision that has been reached, is that the two single page VAT
invoices identified in paragraph 27 of our preliminary decision should be
disclosed within 20 working days from the date of this Decision.

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 (SECTION 50 and 58(1))

SUBSTITUTED DECISION NOTICE
Dated this 19^th day of March 2007

Name of Public authority: Cardiff University

Address of Public authority: 47 Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT

Name of Complainant: Dr C Husbands

The Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner dated 5 July 2006 shall
be substituted as follows:

Nature of Complaint

The Public Authority failed to disclose information regarding external legal
advice received in connection with a particular legal dispute.

Action Required

Two VAT invoices issued by Denton Wilde Sapte dated 20 October 2004 and
25 February 2005 should be disclosed by the Public Authority within 20
working days from the date of this Substituted Decision Notice.

Dated this 19^th day of March 2007

Signed

Deputy Chairman

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048

Reasons for Decision

We adopt the same abbreviations in this Decision as we did in our preliminary
decision dated 16 February 2007. In that decision we decided that a letter
and a schedule, both described in more detail in paragraph 27 of the decision,
and containing the detailed description of work undertaken by solicitors
instructed by the University, were subject to legal professional privilege (so
that they fell within the exemption provided by FOIA section 42). We went on
to decide that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the
public interest in disclosure. However, we decided that two single page VAT
invoices (also identified in paragraph 27), which did not include any such
information, fell outside the exemption.

A separate exemption had been asserted by the University, but had not been
investigated by the Information Commissioner in the course of making the
Decision Notice forming the subject matter of the Appeal. This was that the
information originally requested by the Appellant fell within the exemption
provided by FOIA section 41, in that it included confidential information and
that disclosure other than under FOIA would have constituted an actionable
breach of confidence by the University.

We decided that the parties should be given an opportunity of providing
written submissions on the application of that section to the two invoices
referred to above. We subsequently received a detailed written submission
from the Appellant urging us to reject any claim that the material falling
outside the scope of the section 42 exemption fell within the scope of section
41. However, at the same time we heard from the Information Commissioner
that, having corresponded with the University, he understood that the
disclosure of the VAT invoices alone would not be regarded as constituting an
actionable breach of confidence. On that basis, the Information Commissioner
informed us that he did not intend to advance any argument, for the purposes

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048

of this part of the Appeal, to the effect that the exemption afforded under

section 41 FOIA would apply.

On that basis it is not necessary for us to consider the Appellant’s

submissions and we direct that the two single page VAT invoices referred to

above should be disclosed within 20 working days from the date of this

Decision.

Signed

CHRISTOPER J L RYAN

Deputy Chairman of The Tribunal Date: 19 March 2007

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Information Tribunal including the National Security Appeals Panel
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Information Tribunal including the National Security Appeals Panel >> Husbands v Information Commissioner [2007] UKIT EA_2006_0048_2 (19 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0048_2.html Cite as: [2007] UKIT EA_2006_48_2, [2007] UKIT EA_2006_0048_2



	Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048 of the decision that has been reached, is that the two single page VAT invoices identified in paragraph 27 of our preliminary decision should be disclosed within 20 working days from the date of this Decision.

	2



	Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048

	Reasons for Decision We adopt the same abbreviations in this Decision as we did in our preliminary decision dated 16 February 2007. In that decision we decided that a letter and a schedule, both described in more detail in paragraph 27 of the decision, and containing the detailed description of work undertaken by solicitors instructed by the University, were subject to legal professional privilege (so that they fell within the exemption provided by FOIA section 42). We went on to decide that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. However, we decided that two single page VAT invoices (also identified in paragraph 27), which did not include any such information, fell outside the exemption. A separate exemption had been asserted by the University, but had not been investigated by the Information Commissioner in the course of making the Decision Notice forming the subject matter of the Appeal. This was that the information originally requested by the Appellant fell within the exemption provided by FOIA section 41, in that it included confidential information and that disclosure other than under FOIA would have constituted an actionable breach of confidence by the University. We decided that the parties should be given an opportunity of providing written submissions on the application of that section to the two invoices referred to above. We subsequently received a detailed written submission from the Appellant urging us to reject any claim that the material falling outside the scope of the section 42 exemption fell within the scope of section 41. However, at the same time we heard from the Information Commissioner that, having corresponded with the University, he understood that the disclosure of the VAT invoices alone would not be regarded as constituting an actionable breach of confidence. On that basis, the Information Commissioner informed us that he did not intend to advance any argument, for the purposes

	4



	Appeal Number: EA/2006/0048 of this part of the Appeal, to the effect that the exemption afforded under section 41 FOIA would apply. On that basis it is not necessary for us to consider the Appellant’s submissions and we direct that the two single page VAT invoices referred to above should be disclosed within 20 working days from the date of this Decision.

	Signed CHRISTOPER J L RYAN Deputy Chairman of The Tribunal Date: 19 March 2007

	5

United Kingdom Information Tribunal including the National Security Appeals Panel