FIA meaning

In this issue Equality and human rights Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Post-Brexit transition guidance Information law Other Public Law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information No Weekly Highlights on 24 April 2025 Equality and human rights Supreme Court rules that the EqA 2010 terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ denote biological sex (For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers). In For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the UK Supreme Court unanimously concluded that these terms identify biological sex rather than ‘certificated sex’. The court determined that those holding a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) are not included within the EqA 2010 definition of their acquired gender. The ruling confirms that trans people remain safeguarded by the Act’s gender reassignment provisions and may pursue sex discrimination claims where...

In this issue Equality and human rights Judicial review Information law International law Other public law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Equality and human rights Supreme Court rules on first Russia sanctions challenge (Shvidler v Foreign Secretary) The Supreme Court concluded, by a 4–1 majority, that the sanctions applied by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to Mr Shvidler, and, unanimously, that the actions taken by the Secretary of State for Transport against the yacht M/Y Phi owned by Dalston Projects, introduced immediately after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, were proportionate and lawful notwithstanding the recognised impact on the appellants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In a robust dissent, Lord Leggatt criticised the majority’s stance in Mr Shvidler’s appeal, holding that the measures against him, as a UK national, were disproportionate and thus unlawful. With...

In this issue: Lending On demand bonds Aviation finance Real estate finance Derivatives Cryptoassets Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Lending DG Resources Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWHC 201 (Ch) The Chancery Division allowed DG Resources Ltd’s appeal opposing HMRC’s attempt to wind up the company. The dispute centred on whether delivering a winding-up petition to a Companies House default address amounted to valid service under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024. The court determined that, where a company’s registered office is at a default address, service must comply with the hierarchical scheme in IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, Sch 4 para 2. That scheme is exclusive, displacing the general service route in section 1139(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). HMRC had not served the petition in the manner required, so service was ineffective; accordingly, proper service had not been achieved. Although DG...

This Practice Note reviews the provisions for declining vexatious or repeated requests under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000). Vexatious or repeated requests―scope of the exemption Section 14 sits within FIA 2000, Pt I, which prescribes in detail how requests made under the statute should be managed. Although it is not included among the right to know exemptions listed in FIA 2000, Pt II, in practice it operates to the same effect, as it allows a public authority to refuse a request for information in specified circumstances. section 14(1) effectively releases public authorities from the duty set out in FIA 2000, s 1(1), namely to confirm whether information is held and, if it is, to disclose it to the requester. This applies where the request is vexatious. FIA 2000 does not further define ‘vexatious’ section 14(2) provides the mechanism for public authorities to reject requests that are repeated. Specifically, it applies where the authority has already supplied the information,...

The freedom of information case archive captures and distils notable decisions and case law on the enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR 2004), SI 2004/3391. For background reading, see: Freedom of information—overview; Environmental information regulation—overview. Under each heading, the archive records previous rulings from the following: Court of Appeal (CA) Upper Tribunal (UT) Alongside the key elements of each ruling, where possible there are links to news analysis and commentary from the Freedom of Information Journal, available to Lexis®Library subscribers. For the most recent FIA 2000 and EIR 2004 rulings, see Practice Note: Freedom of information case tracker. For further archived decisions, see archived Practice Notes: Freedom of information case tracker [Archived]; Access to environmental information case tracker [Archived]. Court of Appeal (CA) Citation: Willow v Information Commissioner & Ministry of Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 1876, CA, 22 November 2017 Summary: Considerations relevant to identifying the...

The freedom of information (FOI) case tracker collates and outlines notable judgments and case law concerning the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR 2004), SI 2004/3391... Background reading Freedom of information—overview Environmental information regulation—overview Courts covered Supreme Court (SC) Court of Appeal (CA) Upper Tribunal (UT) Alongside concise case particulars, where feasible the tracker includes links to news analysis and commentary published in the Freedom of Information Journal, available to Lexis®Library subscribers... Archived decisions [Archived] Access to environmental information case tracker [Archived] Supreme Court (SC) Citation: Department for Business and Trade v Information Commissioner [2025] UKSC 27 Summary: Supreme Court confirms cumulative public interest test under FIA 2000 Abstract: The Supreme Court determined that, under FIA 2000, s 2(2)(b), public authorities may weigh and combine public interest considerations across multiple qualified exemptions...

Definitions 1 In this Agreement, unless context requires otherwise, the terms and phrases below carry the meanings given: 1.1 ‘Code of Practice’ refers to the Code of Practice concerning the discharge of duties by public authorities under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391), issued pursuant to Regulation 16 of those Regulations, February 2005; 1.2 ‘DPA 2018’ means the Data Protection Act 2018 (2018/c.12) (as amended); 1.3 ‘EIR 2004’ means Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391) (as amended); 1.4 ‘FIA 2000’ means the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (2000/c. ...

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) are distinct regimes, save for the overlap raised here. They otherwise operate separately from one another as a rule. FIA 2000 contains various exemptions. Those exemptions mean the kind, character or even the presence of the information need not be revealed under FIA 2000. For this scenario, the pertinent carve-out is in FIA 2000, s 40, in particular FIA 2000, ss 40(1) and 40(5)(a). Where the material amounts to personal data and the data subject seeks disclosure via FIA 2000, the exemption applies in absolute terms...