Freedom of Information: The Teeth of Contractual Consultation Obligations
It is well known that the Freedom of Information Act 2000's
right of access to information held by public authorities came into force on 1
January 2005. It is also known that commercial entities dealing with or
otherwise providing information to public authorities could be affected by the
changes.† For example, individuals,
competitors, journalists or potential claimants may request and sometimes
obtain commercially sensitive information originally supplied by those
entities.†
Public authorities transacting with such entities are
likely to find that contractual negotiations include a request for inclusion of
a clause requiring consultation prior to disclosure under the Act.† Questions may arise as to what liabilities a
public authority could face if it were to breach that clause, given that the
circumstances surrounding such a breach would usually entail the public
authority's compliance with a statutory duty to disclose information to the
requesting party.† Could a public
authority find comfort in the notion that compliance with that statutory duty
might trump a contractual obligation and therefore exclude contractual
liability?† In all likelihood, the short
answer is no and that a failure to comply with a contractual consultation
clause may render the authority liable for damages.† This article considers this issue by reference to relevant New
Zealand case law under that country's Official Information Act 1982.
Consultation
as a prerequisite to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act
("FOIA")
Where an authority is in doubt as to whether its
disclosure would constitute a breach of confidence, or might otherwise fall
under an exemption, it can be expected to consult with the party from whom the
information was obtained. To some extent this issue is now covered in the
Secretary of State's Code of Practice on the Discharge of Public Authorities'
Functions Under Part I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "FOIA
Code") as revised in November 2004.(1)
The FOIA Code states that in some cases it will be necessary to consult, directly
and individually, with third parties to determine whether or not an exemption
applies to information requested, or to reach a view on whether the Act's
disclosure obligations arise in relation to that information. It also states
that in a range of other circumstances it will be good practice to do so:† ìfor example where a public authority
proposes to disclose information relating to third parties, or information
which is likely to affect their interests, reasonable steps should, where
appropriate, be taken to give them advance notice, or failing that, to draw it
to their attention afterwards.î† The
Code states further that it may also be appropriate to consult third parties
about matters such as whether any further explanatory material or advice should
be given to the applicant together with the information in question. Such
advice may, for example, refer to any restrictions (including copyright restrictions)
which may exist as to the subsequent use which may be made of such
information.(2)
One may note that the FOIA Code's expectation of
consultation ìin some casesî is neither precisely defined nor statutory in
nature.(3) One might argue on public law grounds that consultation is mandatory
where confidential or commercially sensitive information is at stake, but these
arguments, although strong, are not necessarily robust.(4)† Perhaps more importantly, breach of a public
law obligation does not, without more, give rise to an action for damages
against the public authority.† For these
reasons, companies transacting with public authorities may wish to include
contractual consultation clauses to ensure, to the extent one can, that their
counterparty public authorities will be subject to a contractually binding
obligation to consult.† For example,
they may want to include a term stating that no confidential information shall
be disclosed except where:
the public authority has consulted the other contracting party
on the proposed disclosure or at least reasonably informed that party of the
proposed disclosure (within, for example, 7 days of receipt of a request, to
enable that party to respond); and
disclosure is required by law, under FOIA or...
To continue reading
Request your trial