The First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) ruled earlier this week that a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Governing Body of the University of York (pictured in session above), for emails related to Dr. Anna Bull‘s report on sexual harassment in the creative industries, is not vexatious.
The judgment, published on National Archives website on 7th March, 2025, overturns an earlier decision of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) earlier and requires the University to issue a fresh response within 35 days, highlighting the importance of transparency in public institutions.
Background
In March, 2024, the FOIA applicant, Peter Stead, requested emails from the University of York related to Dr. Anna Bull’s report, “Safe to Speak Up? Sexual harassment in the UK film and television industry since #MeToo“, published in October 2023. The University initially refused, citing the report’s future publication, and later labelled a follow-up email request from Mr Stead as vexatious, claiming it caused staff harassment. The ICO supported this, but the Tribunal disagreed, finding no evidence of harassment and ordering a fresh response to the FOIA request.
Tribunal’s Decision
The Tribunal found the request not vexatious, noting a low burden (only eight email threads) and significant public interest in transparency regarding University and Creative Industry Independent Standards Authority (CIISA) links. The Panel criticised the lack of evidence for harassment claims, highlighting the Information Commissioner’s oversight in not verifying these allegations.
Implications
This decision may encourage more rigorous FOIA assessments, potentially affecting how universities handle transparency requests. It could also prompt the Information Commissioner to review his Office’s processes, ensuring thorough evidence checks, especially when potentially civil torts and/or criminal allegations are raised in public authorities’ submissions, and may also increase scrutiny on creative industry harassment policies.
A Deeper Dive
For the FOIA (and DPA/UKGDPR) ‘nerds’ amongst us, and the author of this article, journalist Neil Wilby, is unashamedly one of those, below is a deeper dive into the background of the request, its history through two appeals and what the Tribunal’s judgement means to the wider FOIA community, whether making requests routinely as part of vocational requirements or a more occasional beneficiary of the Act’s very considerable utility.
Detailed Analysis of the Tribunal Decision and Its Context
This Neil Wilby Media report provides a comprehensive examination of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) judgment in the case of Peter Stead v The Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 281 (GRC), dated 7th March 2025, and its wider implications. The case involved an appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision to uphold the University of York’s refusal of a request for disclosure, deemed vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Tribunal’s decision to allow the appeal offers insights into the application of FOIA, the role of transparency in public institutions, and the balance between public interest and administrative burden, with a particular focus on the University’s use of harassment allegations and the Information Commissioner’s lamentable oversight.
Case Overview and Parties Involved
The appeal, referenced as FT/EA/2024/0351, was decided without a hearing by a Panel consisting of Judge Sophie Buckley, Dr. Phebe Mann, and Anne Chafer. The appellant, Peter Stead, challenged the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice IC-307050-S3Z2 dated 2nd September 2024, which upheld the University of York’s refusal of his FOIA request. The University, as the public authority, was ordered to issue a fresh response within 35 calendar days, confirming if the information is held and either supplying it or issuing a refusal notice under section 17 FOIA, excluding section 14(1). Non-compliance could be certified as contempt to the Upper Tribunal.
The request sought all emails between Dr. Anna Bull, Jennifer Smith, Caroline Norbury and Heather Rabbatts from 1st January 2023, related to professional or academic activities, with personal content redacted. Dr. Bull, a senior lecturer in Education and Social Justice at the University of York, is known for her report “Safe to Speak Up? Sexual harassment in the UK film and television industry since #MeToo”, funded by the Screen Industries Growth Network and released in October 2023. Jennifer is the CEO of the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA), responsible for developing its remit to prevent bullying and harassment in creative industries. Caroline is CEO of Creative UK, is a founding board member of CIISA, focusing on supporting creative talent and businesses. Heather, a prominent figure, has held senior roles in broadcasting, local government, and sports, including as a non-executive director of the Football Association.
Background Context and Request Details
The request’s context is tied to CIISA and Dr. Bull’s report, which addresses ongoing issues of sexual harassment in the UK film and TV industry post-#MeToo. CIISA, established to uphold standards across creative sectors like film, TV, theatre, and music, aims to create safe workplaces through interventions and accountability. The report, based on interviews, revealed persistent harassment and employer failures in legal obligations, underscoring the need for regulatory mechanisms.
Dr. Anna Bull’s research, funded by the Screen Industries Growth Network at the University of York, asks whether it is now safe to speak up about sexual harassment and violence in the UK film and TV industry since the 2017 #MeToo movement. It reveals why people report their experiences and what happens if they do, outlining areas of good practice and needed improvements, accompanied by a policy briefing for regulation and legislation (Policy Brief: Safe to Speak Up?).
Stead’s request, made on March 10, 2024, was for emails likely related to the report’s preparation or discussions with CIISA and related figures.
The university held 8 email threads but refused under section 14(1) FOIA, arguing it was an attempt to circumvent a previous decision, IC-282929-F5J6, dated March 5, 2024. This decision involved a request for the report, refused under section 22A FOIA as it was already publicly accessible. The university claimed the current request caused harassment to staff, a view upheld by the Information Commission, which cited it as part of a pattern to bypass the earlier ruling.
Legal Framework and Tribunal Findings
The tribunal applied section 14(1) FOIA, guided by the precedent Dransfield v Information Commission [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) and [2015] EWCA Civ 454, which defines vexatious requests as “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA.” Factors include burden, motive, value/serious purpose, and causing harassment or distress. The tribunal found:
Burden: Only 8 email threads involved, suggesting minimal administrative impact.
Motive and Value: Request had a serious purpose, focusing on public interest in university-CIISA links, not an attempt to circumvent previous decision.
Harassment: Insufficient evidence provided to support the university’s claim of harassment, with closed material reviewed but not defeating the purpose.
The tribunal concluded the request was not vexatious, allowing the appeal and substituting a new decision notice. The University must issue a fresh response within 35 calendar days from March 7, 2025, confirming if it holds the information and either supplying it or issuing a refusal notice under section 17 of FOIA, excluding section 14(1).
Information Commission’s Oversight
A critical aspect of this case is the Information Commission’s failure to adequately assess the university’s harassment claims. The Commission’s decision notice IC-307050-S3Z2, dated September 2, 2024, upheld the university’s vexatious claim, relying on the assertion of harassment without verifying the evidence (Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice IC-307050-S3Z2).
The tribunal’s review revealed no evidence to support these claims, even after examining closed material, suggesting the Commission did not check or verify the allegations. This oversight is particularly concerning given the mature legal framework for vexatious requests, with settled authorities like Dransfield, which require a holistic assessment. The Commission’s case officer also failed to measure the university’s reasoning against this framework, potentially leading to a grotesque failure in their watchdog role.
Comparative Analysis with Previous Decision
The previous decision, IC-282929-F5J6, involved Stead requesting the “Safe to Speak Up?” report, refused under section 22A FOIA as publicly available. The university argued the email request was part of a pattern to access similar information, but the tribunal distinguished it, noting emails could provide new insights into institutional interactions, not covered by the report. This distinction highlights the tribunal’s focus on the specific nature and purpose of each request, rather than a blanket application of previous rulings.
Implications and Broader Impact
This Tribunal ruling, whilst not binding on higher courts, underscores the high threshold for labelling FOIA requests as vexatious, potentially influencing how public institutions handle similar requests. It may spark debate on resource allocation, with universities arguing for protection against burdensome requests, while transparency advocates will see it as a victory for public access.
Dr Bull’s involvement, given her research on sexual harassment, adds context, with CIISA’s role in creative industries standards providing a backdrop (Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority). Stead’s interest aligns with public scrutiny of such reports, though his specific background remains less detailed, possibly linked to broader transparency efforts.
Jennifer Smith, CEO of CIISA, has led efforts to prevent bullying and harassment, including creating principles and guidance for the screen sector (The CIISA Team). Caroline Norbury, CEO of Creative UK and CIISA board member, has been instrumental in convening sector representatives to tackle workplace issues, emphasizing her role in shaping creative industry responses (CEO of Creative UK, Caroline Norbury appointed (OBE)). Heather Rabbatts, with a diverse background in media and sports, has held significant positions, potentially contributing to industry-wide initiatives (Heather Rabbatts – Wikipedia).
Detailed Breakdown of Key Figures and Organizations
To understand the request’s context, it is useful to consider the roles of the individuals:
Dr. Anna Bull: Senior Lecturer, University of York, author of “Safe to Speak Up?” report. Central to same report, likely involved in email discussions
Jennifer Smith: CEO, CIISA. Leads efforts on bullying/harassment, likely key collaborator
Caroline Norbury: CEO, Creative UK, CIISA board member. Involved in creative industry standards, potential discussions
Heather Rabbatts: Prominent figure in media, sports, possible CIISA involvement. Likely contributor to industry-wide initiatives.
CIISA’s mission, as outlined on its website (CIISA), is to prevent bullying and harassment, aligning with Dr. Bull’s report findings, funded by the University of York’s Screen Industries Growth Network (York Policy Engine).
Conclusion
The Tribunal’s decision, and its implied rather than direct criticism of the information watchdog’s laxity, marks a potentially significant moment for FOIA advocates, emphasising transparency and public interest over administrative convenience. It challenges public authorities to justify refusals rigorously, particularly on sensitive issues, and may influence future handling of similar requests. For stakeholders in creative industries and academia, it reinforces the importance of openness in addressing workplace conduct, potentially shaping institutional practices moving forward.
The Governing Body of the University of York and the Information Commissioner have both been afforded the standard courtesy of right of reply.
Page last updated: Sunday 9th March, 2025 at 0815 hours
Photo Credits: University of York
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.
© Neil Wilby 2015-2025. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment