The First‑tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal brought by a requester seeking internal processing‑cost data for drone authorisation applications, concluding that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) did not hold the information sought and had no duty to generate it.
In Richard Ryan v Information Commissioner & Civil Aviation Authority [2026] UKFTT 447 (GRC), the panel upheld a September 2025 decision notice in which the Information Commissioner had found that, on the balance of probabilities, the CAA held no recorded information showing the average internal processing cost of a PDRA‑01 drone application under its automated DiSCO platform.
The appellant had submitted a four‑part FOI request to the CAA in January 2025. The only disputed element (B1) sought the average internal processing cost (labour and overheads) per PDRA‑01 application or if not directly tracked, any existing average or approximate calculations.
This followed earlier requests that the CAA had refused under the cost limit (s12 FOIA) and s43(2) (commercial interests). Although the appellant invited refinement and approximations, the CAA stated during internal review that no such metrics existed and that providing any average would require the creation of new information.
The regulator explained that:
- The DiSCO platform is a shared digital system used for multiple application types (PDRA01, UK SORA and DMRAS).
- Operating costs for DiSCO are not split by service area.
- Staff‑time data was too limited to enable even a partial reconstruction of average costs.
- Creating an average would require new tracking or modelling, not permitted under FOIA.
The appellant argued that underlying data “building blocks” must exist, pointing to project documentation, business‑case materials, throughput management information and the CAA’s published Scheme of Charges. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that none of these demonstrated that the CAA in fact held the specific data needed to compute an average.
“The appellant may think the CAA ought to have an internal reporting system that gives an average cost per PDRA01 application,” the Tribunal said, “but we accept their position that they do not.”
The appellant also claimed the CAA had failed in its s16 duty to provide advice and assistance, particularly as he had invited suggestions to bring the request under the cost limit and asked for aggregated or approximate figures.
The Tribunal disagreed. Because the CAA did not refuse the request on cost grounds, and because approximations were not already recorded, no duty arose to create or suggest alternative forms of information. None of the scenarios in the ICO’s s45 Code that trigger a duty to advise or assist were found to apply.
Decision
The Tribunal concluded:
- The CAA did not hold the requested information.
- FOIA does not require an authority to create new information or calculations.
- The CAA conducted adequate searches.
- There was no failure to provide reasonable advice and assistance.
The appeal was dismissed. The judgment follows the FOIA principle that an authority must disclose what it holds rather than what a requester considers it ought to hold, nor what could theoretically be derived by combining disparate datasets.
