Keith Kennaugh v The Information Commissioner: Vexatious FOI Request Decision
Summary
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.
What changed
The Upper Tribunal confirmed that a public authority had lawfully relied on section 17(6) FOIA 2000 to refuse a request deemed vexatious, dismissing an appeal by the requester. The Tribunal clarified the relationship between section 17 (procedural) and section 1 (substantive) obligations, holding that section 17(6) only dispenses with section 1 duties when the request genuinely satisfies the vexatious threshold.\n\nPublic authorities handling FOI requests should note that this decision reinforces the need to properly assess whether requests meet the vexatious standard before invoking section 17(6). The decision provides guidance on the character and scope of the vexatious request exception under FOIA, which affects how authorities must process information requests that may otherwise attract disclosure obligations.
What to do next
- Public authorities reviewing FOI requests should apply the substantive vexatious test from this decision before relying on section 17(6)
- Ensure FOI case handling procedures align with the Tribunal's interpretation of the vexatious request threshold
Archived snapshot
Apr 15, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Keith Kennaugh v The Information Commissioner: [2026] UKUT 123 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Markus on 13 March 2026.
From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) Published 15 April 2026 Categories: Information rights Sub-categories: Information rights - Freedom of information - public authority response Judges: Markus, K Decision date: 13 March 2026 Read the full decision in UA-2025-000374-GIA.
Judicial Summary
The public authority had not responded to a request for information, relying on section 17(6) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it claimed that the request was vexatious.
The Upper Tribunal reviews the case law as to the character of section 17 that makes it clear that section 17 is a procedural provision. However, section 17(6) did not dispense with the authority’s obligations under section 1 unless the request was vexatious and so the Information Commissioner and, on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal was required to address that substantive question.
In the present case the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law in deciding that the request was vexatious and that the authority had been entitled to rely on section 17(6).
Updates to this page
Published 15 April 2026
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for UK HMCTS
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from UTAAC.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when UK HMCTS publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.