Key FOI developments from 2025 - 2026

Here are the headline points that public authorities and FOI practitioners should be aware of:

1. ICO enforcement continues to rise

Over the past 18 months, the ICO has issued a number of enforcement notices, information notices and practice recommendations to public authorities in relation to their freedom of information practices, as well as thousands of decision notices. Recent actions include Greater London Authority, the Department of Health and Social Care, Cumberland Council, Chief Constable of Cleveland Police and St Werburgh’s C.E. Primary School. The trend reflects the ICO’s ongoing emphasis on timely and lawful handling of FOI requests, and good governance when it comes to a public authority’s obligations under FOIA. 

2. Tribunal pushback on “vexatious” refusals

In Kennedy & Another v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 00002 (GRC), the First‑tier Tribunal overturned both the public authority’s refusal under s.14(1) FOIA and the ICO’s support for it. 

The Tribunal stressed that the bar to rely on the vexatious exemption is high. If public authorities wish to rely on this exemption, they must conduct a balanced, evidence-based analysis consistent with the principles in Dransfield (i.e. burden, motive, value or serious purpose and harassment or distress). The Tribunal was clear that a request is not simply vexatious because it is made as part of a long-running dispute or generates administrative burden. 

3. Ongoing trends for FOI request handling

The emerging FOI themes reflect a maturing and increasingly scrutinised FOI landscape. The areas causing most challenge are those where both the ICO and the tribunals are demanding more thoughtful, evidence‑based decision‑making from public authorities. Some of the most challenging areas are:

• The application of the commercial interests and confidentiality exemptions. Public authorities must demonstrate specific and current commercial harm, not general assertions. This is because tribunals are less willing to accept blanket claims of confidentiality or competitive disadvantage. In addition, where confidentiality clauses exist in contracts, public authorities must still assess whether these are legally binding, necessary, and enforceable.
• The application of the public interest test. When weighing the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosure, tribunals expect granular reasoning, not generic statements. Public authorities must show why disclosure in this case would cause harm instead of relying on precedent alone. We’re seeing that ICO decision notices increasingly criticise public authorities for failing to document positive benefits of disclosure, such as accountability or public debate, when carrying out their analysis.
• Determining whether a request is vexatious. Public authorities misapplying s.14(1) too broadly continue to be challenged. This means that tribunals are increasingly analysing whether public authorities are carrying out a proportionate and evidence‑based assessment before labelling a request vexatious.
• Administrative requirements, particularly cost limits and assistance. It’s becoming apparent that public authorities often miscalculate time estimates and cost limits or incorrectly label requests as repetitive. In addition, the ICO, in a number of decision notices we’ve seen over the past 18 months, criticise public authorities for not providing reasonable advice and assistance to requesters, such as not helping requesters to properly refine their requests.

What does this mean for organisations?

• Vexatiousness must be robustly justified - a proper assessment should always be carried out before choosing to rely on s.14(1) of FOIA. A blanket or reactive use is increasingly likely to be challenged.
• Reliance on exemptions must be carefully considered and documented – the application of any exemption needs to be specific to that particular FOI request.
• Procedural compliance matters – ICO action continues to pick up delays, incomplete responses, misapplied exemptions and poor advice and assistance given to requesters.
• The ICO expects organisations to help individuals to refine their requests – if a public authority intends to refuse a FOI request because it exceeds the cost limit, the ICO expects organisations to help requester refine their requests.
• ICO decisions carry weight with tribunals - but public authorities must still make well‑reasoned, defensible FOI determinations from the outset.

Need help on FOI compliance? We can support you with general FOI compliance, managing and responding to FOI requests, and any ICO complaints or action taken. If this would be useful, please contact me at Hannah.Moran@IrwinMitchell.com