SEA PEGASUS DRAFTING SERVICES LIMITED

AuthorityAttorney General's Chambers
Date received2024-07-18
OutcomeUpheld - full
Outcome date2026-02-24
Case ID3992277

Summary

The applicant requested unredacted contracts, payment details, and cost-benefit analyses for SEA PEGASUS DRAFTING SERVICES LIMITED from the Attorney General's Chambers. The Information Commissioner upheld the request, ruling that the authority's blanket refusal based on confidentiality was inappropriate and ordered the release of the information.

Key Facts

  • The request was submitted on 2024-07-18 to the Attorney General's Chambers.
  • The Authority initially refused to provide any information citing confidentiality.
  • The Information Commissioner determined that public authority contracts do not qualify as 'information provided in confidence'.
  • The Commissioner ruled that applying a blanket exemption to all requested information was inappropriate.
  • The Authority was ordered to re-process the request and provide a new response.

Data Disclosed

  • 2024-07-18
  • 2026-02-04
  • DN 2026_01
  • Section 42
  • 2015
  • 2023

Exemptions Cited

  • Section 42 (Information provided in confidence)

Original Request

Please supply in line with the Information Commissioner decision notice to the Department of Infrastructure in 2023 (1) an unredacted or only redacted as per the Council of Ministers Code of Practice 2015 paragraph 8.4(c)(iii) copy of contracts with SEA PEGASUS DRAFTING SERVICES LIMITED and any related contracts (2) contract payments with dates with adequate reference to invoice reference and services (3) any cost benefit analysis (4) contract management emails or similar. I rely on the legal principle that a new contractual clause worrying contractual "secrecy" clause to deny the existence of such a contract with conflict of interest implications of public importance despite an open government policy is not able to override pre-existing legal obligations such as that required to constituent voters and taxpayers and residents. I further rely on the Council of Ministers Code of Practice 2015 and in particular: (1) paragraph 8.2(i) that the public should be able to access at least the contract value per financial year, the contract scope and any cost benefit analysis and paragraph 8.2(ii) on contract management (2) paragraph 8.3(a) on all new contracts (3) paragraph 8.3(b)(iv) and (v) and (vi) and its irrelevance to paragraph 8.3(a) (4) paragraph 8.4(c)(iii) (5) paragraph 8.6(a) proactive publication I further rely on the UK Information Commissioner's Office published policy statement "information provided in confidence (section 41)" and in particular: (1) the requirement that a breach of confidence must be "actionable" in court and likely to succeed not merely arguable given the Council of Ministers Code of Practice 2015 clearly requires the requested disclosure (2) paragraph 23(ii) that information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an enforceable legal obligation of confidence (3) paragraph 58 that disclosure of financial information is an authorised use of the information as per the Council of Ministers Code of Practice 2015 (4) paragraph 83(i) (ii) and (iii) public interest based on the ongoing investigations and contentious debates and implications related to the Dr Ranson case (5) paragraph 85 (6) paragraph 86

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Freedom Of Information Act 2015
DECISION NOTICE
Section 42

Decision Number:
DN 2026_01
Public Authority:
Attorney General’s Chambers Address:

Ground Floor Belgravia House Circular Road Douglas IM1 1AE Decision Date:
04 February 2026

Summary

A Freedom of Information request was submitted to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) for a contract with an external supplier, alongside other related materials.

The AGC refused to provide any information stating that it had been provided in confidence.

The Information Commissioner reviewed the case and determined that applying a blanket exemption to all information requested was inappropriate. Furthermore, a contract involving a public authority does not qualify as “information provided in confidence”, as contracts are typically collaborative documents created by both parties.

The Commissioner requires the Authority to re-process the request and provide a new response.

Background 1. On 18 July 2024, the Applicant (“Applicant”) requested the following information from His Majesty’s Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) (“the Authority”).

"Please supply in line with the Information Commissioner decision notice to the Department of Infrastructure in 2023 (1) an unredacted or only redacted as per the Council of Ministers Code of Practice 2015 paragraph 8.4(c)(iii) copy of contracts with SEA PEGASUS DRAFTING SERVICES LIMITED and any related contracts
(2) contract payments with dates with adequate reference to invoice reference and services (3) any cost benefit analysis (4) contract management emails or similar.

I rely on the legal principle that a new contractual clause worrying contractual "secrecy" clause to deny the existence of such a contract with conflict of interest implications of public importance despite an open government policy is not able to override pre- existing legal obligations such as that required to constituent voters and taxpayers and residents.

I further rely on the Council of Ministers Code of Practice 2015 and in particular:
(1) paragraph 8.2 (i) that the public should be able to access at least the contract value per financial year, the contract scope and any cost benefit analysis and paragraph 8.2 (ii) on contract management
(2) paragraph 8.3(a) on all new contracts
(3) paragraph 8.3(b)(iv) and (v) and (vi) and its irrelevance to paragraph 8.3(a)
(4) paragraph 8.4(c)(iii)
(5) paragraph 8.6(a) proactive publication

I further rely on the UK Information Commissioner's Office published policy statement "information provided in confidence (section 41)" and in particular:

(1) the requirement that a breach of confidence must be "actionable" in court and likely to succeed not merely arguable given the Council of Ministers Code of Practice 2015 clearly requires the requested disclosure
(2) paragraph 23(ii) that information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an enforceable legal obligation of confidence
(3) paragraph 58 that disclosure of financial information is an authorised use of the information as per the Council of Ministers Code of Practice 2015
(4) paragraph 83(i) (ii) and (iii) public interest based on the ongoing investigations and contentious debates and implications related to the Dr Ranson case
(5) paragraph 85 (6) paragraph 86"

  1. In summary, the Applicant requested the following information from the Authority:

• All contracts in place between the Authority and Sea Pegasus Drafting Services Limited and any related contracts

• Associated contract payments with dates and reference to invoice and services • Any cost-benefit analysis • Emails relating to the contract management.

  1. The Authority responded to the request on 31 July 2024, refusing to provide the requested information, stating that the information had been provided in confidence (section 26).

  2. On 06 August 2024, the Applicant made a request for review of the decision by the Authority. The Authority responded on 17 September 2024, maintaining the exemption applied. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the response.

  3. On 27 October 2024, the Applicant made their application for review by the Information Commissioner. The Casework Officer was satisfied that the applicant had made a valid request, had sought a review by the Authority and, having received a response, had exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the public authority. The matter was considered.

Analysis 6. Under section 42(1) of Freedom of Information Act1 (“FOIA”) the Information Commissioner is required to decide on whether a public authority has responded to a request in accordance with the requirements of part 2 of the legislation or whether it was justified in refusing to provide the information requested.

  1. The Information Commissioner formally sought the withheld information and any supporting information from the Authority. This request afforded the Authority the opportunity to demonstrate its compliance with the provisions of FOIA. The Authority responded with the requested documents.

  2. The standard processing time in which a public authority should respond to a Freedom of Information (“FOI”) request is 20 working days. Neither FOIA nor the Council of Ministers Freedom of Information Act 2015 Code of Practice2 (“the Code”) specifies or provides any guidance on a timescale for dealing with an internal review request. However, the Information Commissioner does not consider that a review should take longer than the statutory timeframe of 20 working days3 for replying to the request. Where the case is a particularly voluminous and complex case, the Information Commissioner would expect communication to update an applicant of any delays.

  3. The Authority responded to the request on the ninth working day, whilst the Internal Review request was responded to on the 30th working day.

1 https://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2015/2015-0008/2015-0008_16.pdf 2 https://www.tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/Tynwald%2020142016/2015-GD-0068.pdf 3 https://www.inforights.im/individuals/freedom-of-information-your-right-to-ask/the-response/no-response-to-internal-review/

  1. The Applicant asked for four pieces of information relating to a contract entered into by the Authority with Sea Pegasus Drafting Services Limited. A blanket exemption (section 26 - Information provided in confidence) was applied to all four pieces of requested information.

  2. The Authority provided the Information Commissioner with parts of the requested information for the purpose of the review, but notes that there were parts that were not provided, or areas where more information would be expected.

  3. The Authority provided one email in response to the request for "emails relating to contract management". Given the complexity of finalising contract details, the Information Commissioner finds it likely that more emails exist. Further, any cost- benefit analyses were not provided to the Information Commissioner for review. The Authority failed to provide evidence that a reasonable search for any additional records was conducted.

  4. Section 1.4 of the Code outlines the expected steps to take as part of a reasonable search for information - no evidence of a search was provided to the Information Commissioner.

  5. The Isle of Man Government’s guidance on exemption application4 assists public authorities in determining when and how to apply exemptions. The guidance document for section 26 states “Note, a contract between a public authority and another person is not “obtained information” and that “contracts may have the benefit of section 30 (Economy and commercial interests)”. Furthermore, the same guidance encourages the Authority to assess and record why it believes information is confidential- this is an essential step in applying an exemption. The Authority did not provide supporting rationale for the exemption.

  6. Section 26 of the FOIA states:

“Information is absolutely exempt information if –
a) it was obtained by the public authority from another person (including another public authority); and
(b) the disclosure of the information to the public by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.”

  1. Review of the withheld contract deems that the contract was not obtained from another person, but it appears that the contract was written by the AGC, or at the least, written collaboratively with the third-party contractor.

4 https://www.gov.im/media/1358130/09-section-26-information-provided-in-confidence.pdf

  1. Section 8 of the Code advises public authorities entering contracts and states:

“The public must be reassured that Authorities are spending taxpayers money wisely. The type of contractual and/or procurement information produced may vary depending on the situation, but where held the public should be able to access:

• How much money is being spent;

• With whom that money is being spent;

• The nature of the services, goods or works that money is buying;

• What redress is available if those services, goods or works are below an agreed standard; and

• Any cost benefit analysis that has been undertaken”.

  1. An invoice was provided to the Information Commissioner’s Office for review as part of the information that had been withheld under the section 26 exemption. The Information Commissioner considers that there should be a high threshold for claiming that an invoice for public works is confidential, though there may be information within an invoice that is not appropriate to share. The Authority may have considered redactions, or other exemptions where appropriate.

  2. The requested cost benefit analysis documents were not presented to the Information Commissioner for review, and no exemption was applied specifically. If there were no such documents, the Information Commissioner would expect a practical refusal reason under section 11 to be applied (information not held).

  3. An email was provided for review, which had been withheld from disclosure under section 26 - absolutely exempt information provided in confidence. Review of the application of this exemption deems it inappropriate for this piece of information, as it was not obtained by another person. The email in question was from the Attorney General to a government department. The Information Commissioner expects that, owing to the work associated with the formation of the contract, that there were likely more related emails, but they were not presented to the office for review, nor was a practical refusal reason exemption applied to the information (unable to locate).

  4. The UK Information Commissioner issued guidance5 to public authorities when considering confidentiality clauses in contracts with third party contractors, and states:

5 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/request-handling- freedom-of- information/#:~:text=Before%20agreeing%20to%20any%20confidentiality,enforceability%20of%20expectations%20of%20confi dentiality.&text=Further%20reading- ,For%20further%20information%2C%20read%20our%20guidance%20on:,Outsourcing%20and%20freedom%20of%20informati on

“Such clauses cannot, however, prevent disclosure under FOIA if the information is not, strictly speaking, confidential.” 22. Section 8 of the Code issues guidance to public authorities and states:

“An Authority should carefully consider the compatibility of such terms with its obligations under the Act. It is important that both the Authority and the contractor are aware of the limits placed by the Act of the enforceability of such confidentiality clauses.”

  1. A Decision Notice6 (reference: DN2023/0005) was issued to Marown Parish Commissioners, who failed to undertake a reasonable search for the requested information. The Information Commissioner asked the Authority to undertake a reasonable search in compliance with the Code. The Decision Notice specified what a reasonable search should look like for the request.

  2. In Decision Notice7 088/2007, the Scottish Information Commissioner ruled that VisitScotland improperly withheld contracts related to its partnership with eTourism Ltd by incorrectly applying the section 36(2) confidentiality exemption. The Commissioner determined that because the contracts were the result of a mutual negotiation process rather than information simply "obtained" from a third party, they did not meet the legal criteria for a breach of confidence.

  3. In a case before the Information Tribunal8 involving the Department of Health, the UK Information Commissioner argued that the section 41 exemption (Information provided in confidence) did not apply to a specific contract. The Tribunal agreed, ruling that the contract's terms were mutually negotiated and agreed upon by both parties, section 41 could not be used to withhold the information.

Decision
26. The Information Commissioner must decide whether the Authority was justified in refusing to give the information requested.

  1. In this instance, the Information Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the Applicant’s complaint.

  2. The Information Commissioner’s findings confirm that Authority failed to demonstrate a reasonable search for all information, inappropriately applied the section 26 exemption, and failed to consider practical refusal where information was not located.

6 https://www.inforights.im/media/2093/dn2023_05_marown_30may2023.pdf 7 https://www.foi.scot/decision-0882007 8 H- -V1

Reasons for decision

  1. Contracts are not obtained information: A contract is a collaborative document, not information "obtained from another person". Therefore, section 26 does not apply. Section 30 (Commercial interests) could have been considered.

  2. Invoices require transparency: There is a high threshold for claiming confidentiality on invoices for public works. Rather than withholding an invoice in its entirety under section 26, it is advisable to provide the document with specific sensitive details redacted where necessary.

  3. Internal communications: An email between the Attorney General and a government department was wrongly withheld; it was not "obtained from another person" as required to be considered under section 26.

  4. Missing documentation: The Information Commissioner suspects more related emails exist than were provided for review. No Cost-Benefit Analysis was produced. If these documents do not exist, the Authority should consider the application of section 11 practical refusal reason (information not held) after any necessary s

[Response truncated — full text is 23,990 characters]