On 17 December 2025 the Upper Tribunal handed down a landmark judgment in Bence v Cornwall Council & Information Commissioner [2025] UKUT 420 (AAC). This is the first finding by the UT in an information law case that a public authority was in contempt of court.
In 2023 Ms Bence made an information request to Cornwall Council about four fixed bollards, installed near her property, which prevented vehicle access. The Council refused to provide the information sought. She complained to the Information Commissioner, and then appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. At that appeal the FtT made a Substituted Decision Notice (“SDN”) that the Council should provide her with various pieces of information concerning the bollards. This the Council failed to do.
In December 2024 Ms Bence applied to the FtT to certify that the Council was in contempt of court by failing to provide her with all the information required by the SDN. The Council denied being in contempt. The FtT has no power to make a finding of contempt of court itself. However it can refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal under section 61(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the FtT duly certified Ms Bence’s reference to the UT.
The UT has not previously found a public authority in contempt of court in an information law case. Given the public importance of the matter, it was allocated to the UT President, Heather Williams J, and the Information Commissioner was given permission to take part in order to provide submissions on the law.
A one-day UT hearing was held on 20 November 2025. At lunchtime during the hearing the Council changed its position and admitted that it had committed a contempt in not complying with certain aspects of the SDN.
In its judgment handed down on 17 December 2025, Heather Williams J set out the Council’s admission, and also found a further contempt which had not been admitted by the Council. She decided that an appropriate sanction would be the publication of the judgment, setting out the Council’s conduct in detail, and an award of costs in the Applicant’s favour in the agreed sum of £35,000.
The case breaks new legal ground and contains extensive guidance from the President on the law as to how FtT references to the UT for contempt proceedings should be approached in future. The case has been reported in the in Local Government Lawyer, here.
Andrew Sharland KC acted for Ms Bence, the successful applicant, instructed by Wilkin Chapman Rollis. Oliver Jackson acted for the Information Commissioner. The judgment is available here.
