VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, April 07, 2019 18:18:32
In Stocker v Stocker (SvS) dated 3rd April 2019 v the
Supreme Court (SC) concluded, inter alia, that lower court judges unlawfully
fettered their reasoning when relying on an external definition, absent
context, upon which their judgement turned, especially when the contentious
issue was proven to be true.
Using the same rationale put by the SC in S v S, it must
follow that the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court misdirected itself and erred
in law when deciding Dransfield (2015 EWCA /454 Civ because
not only can 'vexatious' not be defined contextually as 'manifestly
unreasonable', but it has been subsequently proved that the issue of
vexatiousness never existed in the first place, within Dransfield,
and also that disclosure of the information sought was proved not to be
Therefore, both logic and justice dictate that the SC
voluntarily revisit Dransfield and strike out all lower court
decisions blocking Dransfield's access to information that has now been
freely placed in the public domain on the grounds that publication is justified
not least on grounds of health and safety, as originally stated by
Dransfield in his FoIA request.
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, February 07, 2019 19:33:40https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013939/fs50610253.pdf
"83. The term “vexatious” is not defined in the FOIA. The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the issue of vexatious requests in the Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield (UKUT 440 (AAC), 28 January 2013).1 The UT commented that “vexatious” could be defined as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”. This definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious."
Olympic StadiumPosted by Sheila Oliver Tue, November 20, 2018 18:48:43
This document can be more clearly read via this link:http://www.sheilaoliver.org/alan-dransfield.html
Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Mon, September 03, 2018 19:14:31
Email sent - Mon 03/09/2018 10:54
Information Commissioners Office
Under protection of the FOIA 2000 please provide me with
copies of the following
1. All correspondence between the ICO and David Lidington ref the recent changes to sect 45 of FOIA
2. Records of all phone calls, meetings etc
and personal notes from Ms Denham to the Queen on same subject.
3. Copies of all correspondence from your office pertaining
to sect 45 changes and responses from the Cabinet Office. This request is
neither vexatious, wide or unfocused.
Alan M Dransfield