Tribunal upholds manifestly unreasonable exception in environmental information dispute

The First-tier Tribunal decision in Homeseptic Ltd v The Information Commissioner [2025] provides important guidance on the application of the "manifestly unreasonable" exception under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), particularly where persistent requests create administrative burdens for public authorities.

Factual Background

Homeseptic Ltd, a wastewater and sewerage treatment specialist, appealed against the Information Commissioner's decision notice of 10 June 2024. The company had requested extensive documentation from the Environment Agency (EA) regarding specific environmental permits, claiming the information was essential for assessing regulatory compliance and furthering business operations.

The EA had disclosed various documents in response to earlier requests but refused further disclosure, citing Regulation 12(4)(b). The Information Commissioner upheld this position, prompting Homeseptic's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Tribunal Analysis

The Tribunal considered the case on the papers, with both parties consenting to determination without a hearing. Evidence revealed that the EA had received numerous complaints from Homeseptic Ltd relating to environmental permits, establishing a pattern of persistent engagement with the regulatory body.

Central to the Tribunal's reasoning was the examination of Homeseptic's stated motivation for the requests. Whilst the company claimed its purpose was ensuring fair and accurate permit issuance to prevent environmental harm, the Tribunal questioned this assertion given Homeseptic's previous withdrawal of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate concerning one of the disputed permits.

This withdrawal proved pivotal to the Tribunal's assessment. The judges observed that if the permits were genuinely of such significant concern, the logical course would be pursuing established remedies through the Planning Inspectorate rather than making extensive information requests to the EA.

Administrative Burden Assessment

The Tribunal carefully evaluated evidence regarding the resource implications of Homeseptic's requests. The EA demonstrated that responding to multiple requests from the appellant had imposed a considerable administrative burden, requiring substantial time and effort from the regulatory body.

This assessment proved crucial in determining whether the exception under Regulation 12(4)(b) applied. The Tribunal recognised that whilst the EIR establishes a presumption in favour of disclosure, this presumption does not override considerations of proportionality when public authorities face excessive demands on their resources.

Public Interest Balancing

The judgement addressed the broader public interest considerations inherent in environmental information disclosure. The Tribunal acknowledged the general public benefit in transparency regarding regulatory compliance matters, recognising the importance of environmental oversight and accountability.

However, the Tribunal concluded that in these specific circumstances, the public interest in upholding the exception outweighed the benefits of disclosure. This determination rested significantly on the availability of alternative legal remedies through established frameworks, which provided appropriate channels for challenging the EA's permit decisions.

Legal Implications

The decision reinforces important principles regarding the scope and limits of environmental information rights. The Tribunal's approach demonstrates that the presumption favouring disclosure under the EIR must be balanced against legitimate concerns about resource allocation and the availability of alternative remedies.

The judgement emphasises that public authorities may legitimately rely on the manifestly unreasonable exception where information requests form part of a pattern of persistent engagement that creates disproportionate administrative burdens. This is particularly relevant where appellants have access to established legal remedies for their underlying concerns.

The decision also highlights the importance of genuine motivation in environmental information requests. The Tribunal's scrutiny of Homeseptic's stated purposes demonstrates that apparent inconsistencies between claimed objectives and actual conduct may undermine the case for disclosure.

This precedent provides valuable guidance on balancing transparency obligations with resource constraints, establishing clearer parameters for when the manifestly unreasonable exception may apply in environmental information disputes.