English Heritage Trust v Information Commissioner: blue plaques research ordered disclosed under FOIA

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has dismissed an appeal by the English Heritage Trust ("EH"), upholding the Information Commissioner's decision that historical research into the blue plaque nomination of Sir Charles Chaplin must be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The judgement, handed down on 29 April 2026, addresses the scope of the commercial interests exemption under s.43(2) and the public interest balance under s.36(2).

The case arose from a 2024 request seeking information about all occasions on which Chaplin had been considered for a blue plaque, the reasons for any decisions not to proceed, and copies of any historical research commissioned into his suitability. EH disclosed some information but withheld a Panel Report and associated research — the "Disputed Information" — relying in sequence on ss.22, 36, 43, and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner found for disclosure subject only to personal data redactions under s.40(2), and EH appealed.

Section 43(2): commercial interests not engaged

EH argued that disclosure would diminish the originality and commercial value of forthcoming publications, including a revised Blue Plaques Guide expected in 2027 and a proposed app. The Tribunal accepted that EH had identifiable commercial interests, including publication revenue, donor cultivation, and ticket sales for guided walks, but found the causal link between disclosure of the specific Disputed Information and the alleged prejudice insufficiently demonstrated.

Applying Hartlepool Borough Council v Information Commissioner (EA/2017/0057), the Tribunal required EH to identify a concrete connection between the particular withheld material and the harm envisaged, rather than relying on assertions about the competitive heritage sector generally. The Tribunal observed that the Chaplin entry in the current Guide ran to approximately 160 words, limiting the realistic scope for deploying the research commercially, and noted the possibility that disclosure might in fact generate public interest in EH's activities. Section 43(2) was accordingly found not to be engaged.

Section 36(2): public interest favours disclosure

It was common ground that the qualified person's opinion under s.36(2)(b)(i) and (c) was reasonable. The Tribunal therefore moved directly to the public interest balance, applying the framework in APPGER v IC & FCO [2013] UKUT 560 (AAC): identifying the actual harm from disclosure, then weighing competing public interest factors.

EH's principal s.36 argument was a chilling effect on the candour of Blue Plaques historians advising the Panel. The Tribunal acknowledged this concern in principle but found it unpersuasive on the specific facts. Mr Spencer, EH's Lead Historian, accepted in evidence that the categories of subject matter most obviously requiring a safe space — sexual abuse allegations, racist views, the privacy of living persons — did not apply to the Chaplin research. The passages of the Disputed Information said to be sensitive largely consisted of wording that could be read as obliquely critical of third parties, which the Tribunal considered could have been omitted without compromising the quality of advice to the Panel.

The Tribunal also noted that the Disputed Information was over a decade old, that EH had already published two editions of the Blue Plaques Guide referencing the Chaplin plaque, and that significant biographical material was publicly available. The judgement is clear, however, that this outcome is case-specific: the Tribunal expressly declined to suggest that disclosure would be appropriate for all blue plaque nominations, recognising that future cases may involve genuinely contentious material requiring protection.

Grounds 3 and 4 — the public interest under s.43(2) and the cumulative approach endorsed in Department for Business and Trade v IC [2025] UKSC 27 — fell away given the finding on s.43(2). The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.