The First-tier Tribunal has ruled that English Heritage must disclose internal historical research into Charlie Chaplin's suitability for a blue plaque, rejecting arguments that their release would harm the charity's commercial interests or create a chilling effect on its historians.
The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has upheld the Information Commissioner's decision requiring English Heritage (EH) to disclose withheld research connected to the 2017 award of a blue plaque to Sir Charles Chaplin, dismissing all four grounds of the charity's appeal.
The case, The English Heritage Trust v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 634 (GRC), arose from a Freedom of Information request made by an unnamed complainant in October 2024 seeking details of all occasions when Chaplin had been considered for a blue plaque, as well as copies of any historical research into his career, private life and political affiliations.
English Heritage had initially relied on section 22 of FOIA - the exemption for information intended for future publication - but withdrew that position when it could not identify with sufficient certainty which parts of its research would appear in a forthcoming Blue Plaques Guide. It instead claimed exemptions under sections 36, 43 and 40(2). The Information Commissioner rejected those arguments in August 2025 and ordered disclosure.
Engish Heritage's appeal argued that disclosure would prejudice its commercial interests under section 43(2), given that its historians' original research underpins a range of income streams , including publications, guided walks, donor cultivation and a planned Blue Plaques app.
The Tribunal was unpersuaded. Applying the well-established test from Hartlepool Borough Council v Information Commissioner (public authorities must prove a direct causal link between disclosing information and commercial prejudice), it held that EH had failed to demonstrate the necessary causal link between the specific disputed information and the commercial harm alleged. While the charity's witnesses spoke to the general importance of original research to EH's income, including guidebook sales of around £1 million per year and roughly £55,000–£60,000 in annual Blue Plaques donations, the Tribunal found these assertions were too general to engage the exemption.
The panel also noted that the Chaplin blue plaque had been in place for nearly a decade and that at least two editions of the Blue Plaques Guide had already been published referencing it. It added, pointedly, that disclosure of the research might in fact generate public interest in EH's commercial activities rather than undermine them.
English Heritage also argued that disclosure would inhibit its historians from giving candid advice to the Blue Plaques Panel, a body made up of volunteers that takes the final decision on nominations. EH's Lead Historian on the Blue Plaques Scheme gave evidence that he would feel inhibited if the safe space within which the Panel receives advice were eroded, and that reports might be written more cautiously, with controversial assessments omitted.
The Tribunal acknowledged that this was "finely balanced" but ultimately found the argument not made out on the particular facts. The withheld information did not concern the kinds of genuinely sensitive matters, allegations of abuse, racist or homophobic views, or the need to protect living individuals, that EH's own witnesses identified as typically requiring a safe space for frank discussion. The Tribunal observed that EH historians, as employees of a public authority, should be aware that their communications may be subject to FOIA disclosure, and that the disputed material was more than ten years old.
The panel was careful to limit its ruling to the specific circumstances: "There will, of course, be individuals recommended for Blue Plaques where the material that must be considered is contentious, but in relation to the disputed information in question in this case we were not satisfied that it was."
