UK HMCTS

Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner: Legal Advice Privilege in PM Covid FOIA Case [2026] UKUT 140 (AAC)

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) allowed the Cabinet Office's appeal against a First-tier Tribunal decision regarding legal advice privilege under section 42(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Tribunal ruled that confirming the fact that the Prime Minister had sought legal advice on the lawfulness of the 23 March 2020 Covid-19 lockdown would have revealed information protected by legal advice privilege. The FTT's preliminary decision was set aside and remade in the Cabinet Office's favour.

LL and MM v Telford and Wrekin Council - Naming Specialist Hub in EHC Plan

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dismissed an appeal concerning whether a specialist hub operated by a maintained special school could be lawfully named in Section I of a child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Tribunal held that such a hub is part of the maintained special school and may be named in Section I alongside the parent school, provided the special school is also named. The decision upholds the approach in prior cases including TB v Essex County Council [2013] and MA v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2015].

Keith Kennaugh v The Information Commissioner: Vexatious FOI Request Decision

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) upheld a First-tier Tribunal decision finding that a public authority correctly relied on section 17(6) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to refuse a request as vexatious. The Tribunal clarified that while section 17 is procedural, section 17(6) does not eliminate the authority's obligations under section 1 unless the request genuinely meets the vexatious threshold. The decision confirms the substantive legal test for determining whether an FOI request is vexatious under UK law.

MC v Disclosure and Barring Service: Care Worker Barred for Violence and Duty Dereliction

The Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber dismissed an appeal by MC against the Disclosure and Barring Service's decision to bar him from working with vulnerable groups. While the Tribunal found DBS's analysis of the appellant's historical violence may have been flawed, it upheld the barring decision because DBS also relied on more recent incidents demonstrating dereliction of duties as a care worker, which independently supported the same outcome.

National Crime Agency v DP and Others: Employment Appeal Tribunal Judgment

The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) issued its judgment in National Crime Agency v DP and Others [2026] EAT 52 on 15 April 2026, presided over by Judge Tayler. The case concerned an appeal brought by the National Crime Agency in an employment matter. The EAT's decision creates binding precedent for employment disputes involving law enforcement agencies.