To: Matthew Davis

By email: request - [email address]

4^th March 2010

Dear Mr Davis

Request dated 4 February 2010

I can now answer your request dated 4 February 2010 as follows:

1. Please could you tell me what the total in legal costs were incurred by the University in relation to case EA/2009/0034

The total legal costs incurred were £68,347.19 plus VAT from the original request to the decision of the Information Tribunal.

2. I specifically want a breakdown showing all costs from the date of the initial Freedom of Information Request through to the ICO's decision and then the Tribunal. This should be a total figure as well as breaking down the total to the individual invoices showing each amount and who each amount was paid to.

The total legal costs figures is set out in paragraph 1 above. The breakdown of costs into the time periods requested is as follows:

Date of original request to ICO's decision - £4,522.37 plus VAT

From ICO's decision to decision of the Tribunal - £63,825.82 plus VAT.

We are relying on s.43(2) and so are not providing a breakdown of the individual invoices and who each amount was paid to. The public interest factors in favour of disclosing this information is promoting accountability and transparency in the spending of public money. We consider that that is satisfied by the amounts already provided to you in this letter. However, the public interest factors for maintaining the exemption and withholding the information are that disclosing the breakdown of costs on the individual invoices and who they were paid to would be likely to prejudice the University's commercial interests in that the University tenders for its legal advice and negotiates separately for any Counsel representation or advice and revealing the rates for the detailed work carried out would prejudice the University's ability to negotiate rates from solicitors and Counsel. Without that ability to negotiate rates it may result in the University having to pay higher rates and thus a higher spend of public money. Accordingly the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

We are also relying on s.42(1) in not providing the invoices themselves and any description of work on them. The factor in favour of disclosure under the public interest test is that it will increase transparency about the way the University seeks external legal advice. However the public interest factors for maintaining the exemption are that it would reveal a description of work which could reveal tactical and strategic decisions and approach in the case which is properly a matter between solicitor and client and which is subject to legal professional privilege. Therefore the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

3. Specifically I want to know how much was paid to 11KBW and/or Tim Pitt-Payne for legal advice and representation at the Tribunal.

This information is not separately provided and we rely on s.43(2) and s.42(1) for the reasons already set out above in paragraph 2.

If you have any queries about the information provided or require any other advice or assistance on the Freedom of Information Act can you please contact Alex Bostock [email address] tel: 01772 892561 to discuss them

The University requests that information that includes the name of an individual responsible for the purchase of goods and services within the University is only re-used by you (or any third party to whom you may pass this information) if permitted to do so under the terms and conditions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which gives individuals the right to prevent processing for direct marketing purposes) and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 which require that individuals knowingly consent before they are contacted for direct marketing purposes by electronic means such as telephone, fax, e-mail, text message and picture (including video) message and by any automated calling system.

The reproduction of material supplied by the University of Central Lancashire without the express permission of the University may be an infringement of copyright. Requests for permission should be addressed to the University Librarian, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE.

Publication of false, defamatory or personal data or information may give rise to various kinds of liability, including defamation, malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breach of the Data Protection Act. Publication of this response without the express permission of the University of Central Lancashire may give rise to an action for copyright infringement.

If you require a hard copy of this response can you please let me know.

Complaints made about the operation of the Freedom of Information Act and the Publication Scheme within the University should be made to the Head of the Strategic Development Service at the University:

Dr Jean Brown

Head, Strategic Development Service

University of Central Lancashire

Preston

PR1 2HE

Any unresolved complaints should be made to

Professor Dave Phoenix

Deputy Vice Chancellor (SP&PM)

University of Central Lancashire

Preston

PR1 2HE

If an applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaints procedure, an appeal may be made to the Information Commissioner:

The Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Tel 01625-545-700

Fax 01625-545-510.

Yours sincerely

Alexandra Bostock

Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer