The meaning of ‘vexatious’ / ‘manifestly unreasonable’

In Tilson v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 1110 (GRC) the Appellant submitted an information request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) and the Data Protection Act 2018, relating to a planning matter. Northumberland County Council refused to comply on the basis that the request was vexatious. On complaint, the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) upheld the Council’s decision, concluding that the request was manifestly unreasonable.

Grounds of appeal

The Appellant advanced several grounds of appeal, including that:

• he had not been notified about the shift from reliance on “vexatious” (FOIA terminology) to “manifestly unreasonable” (EIR terminology) and had no chance to make representations;
• the Council failed to provide advice or assistance;
• the ICO wrongly failed to consider the public interest in disclosure; and
• his request was neither vexatious nor manifestly unreasonable.

Tribunal’s decision

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) dismissed the appeal. Key points include:

• Equivalence of tests: The Tribunal confirmed that the FOIA concept of “vexatious” and the EIR test of “manifestly unreasonable” have an identical meaning. Accordingly, the Council’s change of terminology was not a valid ground of appeal. In addition the Appellant had been afforded opportunities to make submissions, and late reliance on exemptions or exceptions is permissible ([57]).
• Application of Dransfield: The Tribunal followed the principles contained within Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), where “vexatious” was defined as a “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.” In Dransfield the Tribunal had identified four themes for consideration when assessing a request: (1) the burden on the public authority and its staff (2) the motive of the requester (3) the value or serious purpose of the request, and (4) the presence of any harassment or distress.
  In this case the Tribunal noted:
  • Burden on the authority – This was the Appellant’s fifth request in relation to the same planning issue, accompanied by a high volume of correspondence.
  • Motive – The Appellant’s persistence suggested a collateral motive linked to dissatisfaction with the planning decision, which ought properly to have been pursued through the planning system.
  • Value or serious purpose – The Tribunal found no significant public interest in the material sought, particularly as the property in question had already been built.
  • Harassment/distress – Concerns arose from the Appellant’s conduct, including an incident where he allegedly approached a planning officer who lived locally, and subsequently submitted a FOI request regarding their involvement.
• Conclusion: The request was both vexatious and manifestly unreasonable.

Conor Monighan is a barrister at 5 Essex Chambers.