Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 3
An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline processing part of an access request, arguing it was duplicative of information previously released informally. The Commissioner found the institution failed to demonstrate the request was vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right to access. The Commissioner also noted the institution did not provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support its claim of duplication. Therefore, the institution was ordered to process the access request.
- Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to justify declining to act on part of an access request under section 6.1(1) of the ATIA.
- Whether the information sought in the formal request was duplicative of information previously released informally.
- Whether the Commissioner can make an informed decision based on the information provided by the institution.
Section 6.1 application denied
The institution failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the access request (or part thereof) was vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right to access. The application lacked sufficient submissions and supporting evidence.
AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
The institution is required to process the access request.
- s.6.1 ATIA
This is an informational summary and not legal advice.