EIR exceptions on FindOut

Regulation 10(4)(a) - Information not held

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying it does not hold the environmental information you asked for. Under the EIRs, “held” means information in the authority’s possession that was produced or received by it, or information held by another person on the authority’s behalf.

Unlike FOISA, all EIR exceptions are subject to a public interest test and must be interpreted restrictively. There is a presumption in favour of disclosure.

Regulation 10(4)(b) - Manifestly unreasonable requests

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying your request is “manifestly unreasonable.” This is the EIR equivalent of the “vexatious” provision under FOISA (section 14), but with an important difference: under the EIRs, this exception is subject to a public interest test. Under FOISA, section 14 is a procedural refusal with no public interest test.

The word “manifestly” sets a high bar. A request is not manifestly unreasonable simply because it involves a lot of work. The authority must show that the request is clearly and obviously unreasonable - mere inconvenience is not enough.

Regulation 10(4)(c) - Request too general

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying your request was too vague or general for it to identify the information you want. This exception can only be used if the authority has first asked you to clarify your request and helped you make it more specific.

Unlike FOISA, all EIR exceptions are subject to a public interest test and must be interpreted restrictively. There is a presumption in favour of disclosure.

Regulation 10(4)(d) - Material in the course of completion

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying the information you asked for relates to material that is still being completed, unfinished documents, or incomplete data. This exception is designed to protect work in progress from premature disclosure.

Unlike FOISA, all EIR exceptions are subject to a public interest test and must be interpreted restrictively. There is a presumption in favour of disclosure.

Regulation 10(4)(e) - Internal communications

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying the information is an internal communication - for example, internal emails, meeting notes, or documents circulated within the organisation. This is a class-based exception, meaning the authority doesn’t need to show that disclosure would cause harm. But it still must pass the public interest test.

This exception is frequently overused. It is the EIR equivalent of section 30 of FOISA, and authorities misuse it in similar ways - applying it too broadly without genuinely engaging with the public interest test.

Regulation 10(5)(a) - International relations, defence, national security, public safety

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to one or more of: international relations, defence, national security, or public safety.

This is one of the broadest EIR exceptions - it covers four distinct interests. But the authority must specify which one it is relying on and explain how disclosure would cause harm. Simply citing the regulation number is not enough.

Regulation 10(5)(b) - Course of justice and inquiries

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial, or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature.

This exception is sometimes used to protect legal professional privilege (legal advice or litigation documents) or to safeguard ongoing investigations. But the authority must show specific harm, not just that a legal proceeding exists.

Regulation 10(5)(c) - Intellectual property rights

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to intellectual property rights. IP rights include copyright, database rights, and patents.

This exception is relatively uncommon. It is not enough to show that information is subject to IP rights - the authority must show that disclosure would actually cause harm to the rights holder. Since disclosure under the EIRs does not transfer ownership of IP rights, the rights continue to exist after disclosure.

Regulation 10(5)(d) - Confidentiality of proceedings

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to the confidentiality of proceedings where such confidentiality is provided for by law.

The key phrase is “provided for by law” - there must be a legal basis for the confidentiality, not just an internal policy or convention. The authority must also show that disclosure would cause substantial prejudice, not merely that the proceedings are confidential.

Regulation 10(5)(e) - Commercial or industrial confidentiality

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, where that confidentiality is provided for by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.

This is one of the most frequently overclaimed EIR exceptions, particularly for information about public contracts and commercial arrangements involving public money. The Commissioner has overturned many refusals under this exception where the claimed harm was speculative or where the public interest in transparency was strong.

Regulation 10(5)(f) - Interests of the information provider

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to the interests of the person who voluntarily provided the information. This exception is designed to encourage the voluntary flow of information to public authorities - for example, information from research surveys, whistleblowing, or voluntary submissions.

This exception has three strict preconditions that must all be met before it can even be considered. If any one of them fails, the exception cannot apply - regardless of any harm claim.

Regulation 10(5)(g) - Protection of the environment

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to the protection of the environment to which the information relates.

This is the unusual exception in the EIRs - it exists to protect the environment rather than to protect institutional interests. For example, disclosing the location of rare or endangered species could lead to disturbance or poaching. In these cases, the public interest may genuinely favour withholding.

Regulation 11 - Personal data

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What this exception means#

The authority is saying the information is personal data and that disclosing it would breach data protection law. This is the EIR equivalent of FOISA section 38.

Regulation 11 has two parts:

Regulation 11(1) - if the information is your own personal data, it cannot be disclosed under the EIRs. Instead, you should make a Subject Access Request under data protection law.
Regulation 11(2) - if the information is someone else’s personal data, it can only be disclosed if doing so would not breach the data protection principles (primarily the requirement that processing is lawful and fair).

Important: Regulation 11 sits outside regulation 10, so it works differently depending on which condition the authority relies on. In the usual case - the first condition, that disclosure would breach the data protection principles - there is no separate public interest test, but an equivalent balancing exercise is built into the data protection principles themselves, through the legitimate interests test under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR. In the two rarer cases - the second condition (the person has objected to processing under Article 21 of the UK GDPR) and the third condition (the person would not get the data through their own subject access request) - regulation 11 requires an explicit public interest test: the data can only be withheld if the public interest in making it available is outweighed by the public interest in not doing so.