The First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) has ruled that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) unlawfully aggregated the costs of two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests when refusing disclosure under section 12, allowing an appeal by requester Paul Nicholas.
In Arthur v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 338 (GRC), the Tribunal held that the Information Commissioner erred in law by accepting the FCDO’s reliance on section 12(4) FOIA to combine the estimated costs of two separate requests - one seeking documentation indicating the extent of FCDO funding for the Centre for Information Resilience (CIR), and the other requesting FCDO correspondence with the organisation.
The Tribunal rejected the ICO’s conclusion that the two requests shared sufficient similarity because they both related to FCDO’s “engagement” with CIR. Instead, Judge Kiai held that the statutory test requires similarity in the information requested, not mere connection to a common organisation.
On an “objective and fair reading”, funding‑extent information and outward correspondence were “materially different categories of information” held in different systems and for different purposes. The ICO’s approach, the Tribunal warned, would collapse section 12(4) into a broad “same topic or organisation” test, contrary to Parliament’s intention that the aggregation provision be narrowly construed.
Because the aggregation was unlawful, the Tribunal found that the ICO’s decision notice - which upheld refusal of both requests on aggregated cost grounds - could not stand. It remitted the matter for a fresh determination of section 12(1), requiring the FCDO to reassess Request 1 (funding information) on a standalone basis.
The Tribunal made no final finding on whether the cost limit would be exceeded for Request 1 individually, but noted the parties’ differing interpretations of the phrase “any documentation indicating the extent of FCDO funding”. It suggested the FCDO consider seeking clarification under section 16 FOIA.
The FCDO must now issue a fresh response within 35 days, either complying with Request 1 or providing a revised, evidence-based estimate showing how section 12(1) applies without aggregation. The decision offers important guidance on the limits of FOIA cost aggregation and reinforces that public authorities cannot aggregate merely because multiple requests involve the same third-party organisation.
