FOIA Request For Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Ministerial Diaries During The COVID-19 Pandemic Refused

Corderoy v The Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 673 (GRC)

Background

The Appellant, Jenna Corderoy, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) seeking a copy of Boris Johnson’s ministerial diaries from 1 March 2020 to 16 April 2020.

The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request and relied upon Section 14(1) of the FOIA, branding the request “vexatious” in nature due to the anticipated burden of reviewing over 500 diary entries.

Section 14(1) of FOIA confirms that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if it is vexatious. In the case of the Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield, the Upper Tribunal clarified that the purpose of Section 14(1) is to:

When deciding whether a request is vexatious, a public authority should think about the following:

The Appellant submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO agreed with the Cabinet’s decision and concluded that compliance with the request would be vexatious.

Unhappy with this, the Appellant challenged the decision and lodged an appeal with the First-Tier Tribunal. Within the appeal, the Appellant submitted that the ICO was wrong in law and that Section 14(1) of the FOIA had not been applied properly.

In support of its own position, the Cabinet Office provided a detailed breakdown of the steps required to process each entry, including security consultations, exemption assessments, and cross-departmental reviews. It is estimated that it would take approximately 5 – 10 minutes to review each of the 522 different entries.

The Tribunal’s analysis followed the framework established in the Dransfield case and the four points set out above. The Tribunal was sympathetic to the public interest in understanding the Prime Minster’s actions during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal did however, make it clear in its decision that public interest does not override the statutory protections afforded by Section 14(1) of the FOIA.

The Tribunal ultimately concluded that, notwithstanding the public interest in the information requested, the excessive burden on the Cabinet Office in responding to the request at a great time of strain (during the pandemic) was sufficient to render the request vexatious within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the ICO’s Decision Notice did not contain any error of law.

Comment

Even if there is a public interest in the information requested, the request can still be refused if it poses an excessive burden upon the authority from which the information is requested.