Bence v Cornwall Council & Anor (INFORMATION RIGHTS) [2025] UKUT 420 (AAC) (17 December 2025)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal found Cornwall Council in contempt for failing to comply with parts of a First-tier Tribunal substituted decision notice under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 / EIR framework. It held that the Council remained in breach of paragraph 2(a) until 23 July 2025, but it was not shown to have breached the decision notice after that date or to have breached the separate 11 February 2025 order. The Tribunal sanctioned the contempt by publishing its findings and ordering the Council to pay £35,000 in agreed costs.

Key points

• Parties: Ms Penny Bence v Cornwall Council and the Information Commissioner; appeal heard in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber).
• Trigger: certification of alleged contempt under section 61(4) FOIA for non-compliance with an FTT substituted decision notice and an FTT order.
• Holding: Cornwall Council admitted contempt for late compliance with paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of the SDN; the Tribunal found a further contempt for breach of paragraph 2(a) continuing until 23 July 2025.
• Holding: no breach proved after 23 July 2025, and no breach proved of the FTT's 11 February 2025 order.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal addressed the roles of the FTT and Upper Tribunal in FOIA contempt certifications, the elements of civil contempt, procedural safeguards, and sanction factors.
• Sanction: publication of the contempt findings plus costs of £35,000; no imprisonment, fine, or asset confiscation sought or imposed.

Why it matters

This is a public-law enforcement decision about compulsion to disclose environmental information, not a sanctions or export-control case. Its relevance for national-security and sovereign-risk audiences is procedural: it shows how UK tribunals can escalate non-compliance by public authorities into contempt findings, public censure, and costs exposure.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the decision reinforces that failure to meet tribunal disclosure deadlines can become contempt exposure even where eventual compliance occurs. Public authorities facing information-rights orders should treat deadline management, documented responses, and prompt corrective action as enforcement-critical, because delay can still attract public findings and adverse costs even without harsher penalties.