City council wins tribunal appeal over request for information on contract with provider of stray dog service
Liverpool City Council has won an appeal over whether it needs to disclose details of its contract with the provider of its lost and stray dogs service.
It had been ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner, but this has been overturned by the First-Tier Tribunal, General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights), which in Liverpool City Council v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2022] UKFTT 451 (GRC) concluded that disclosure would harm Animal Wardens Ltd's (AWL's) business and potentially place employees at risk.
A member of the public in 2019 asked for all documents held by the council in relation to the contract with Animal Wardens.
Liverpool, disclosed some information but cited exemptions in sections 21, 40(2) and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to the rest.
The request them went to the Commissioner, who decided Liverpool had failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) was engaged and therefore directed it to disclose the withheld information, excluding that withheld under section 40(2).
Among the documents that would then be disclosed were the invitation to tender, Animal Wardens’ method statement and business continuity plan and its arrangements for managing subcontractors.
Liverpool later disclosed the invitation to tender but appealed to the FTT over the remainder.
It argued the method statement “sets out very extensive and current information about all aspects of AWL’s business model which would very likely harm the commercial interests of AWL were it to become available to competitors”.
Information on managing subcontractors “reveals details about this crucial aspect of AWL’s business, and would likely assist those wishing to disrupt AWL’s business”, while the business continuity plan dealt with managing disruptions.
The council said Animal Wardens “has experienced very significant attempts to disrupt its business by those opposed to its activities, apparently motivated by animal rights concerns” and disclosure of the plan “would likely exacerbate the frequency and effectiveness of these attempts because it would provide disruptors with new, additional insights into how better to disrupt AWL’s business”.
FTT panel members agreed with Liverpool’s submissions and noted: “AWL’s personnel have already been targeted both in person and on social media with threats of violence, and by harassment and intimidation on numerous occasions and in a variety of ways.”
Specific instances included masked protestors outside AWL’s vet’s premises with billboards labelled ‘murderers’ and staff returning lost dogs to their rightful homes being subjected to aggression and violence due to adverse social media posts.
The panel concluded the exemption in section 31(1)(a) was engaged, that disclosure of the information would endanger health or safety and that the exemption in section 41(1) applied.
Tribunal Judge Alexandra Marks, sitting with tribunal members Kate Grimley-Evans and Paul Taylor, further concluded that for each of qualified exemptions the factors in favour of keeping the information confidential outweighed those for disclosure.
The panel said it “considers that the withheld information if disclosed would add little additional transparency, ability by the public to scrutinise public monies spent or protect the public from dubious practices.
“There would, on the other hand, on the panel’s findings of fact be a real and significant risk of: increasing intimidation and harassment of individuals working for AWL; damage to AWL’s property; and damaging the commercial interests of both AWL and the council.”
Mark Smulian
