Marrk Keir
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date as email
Dear Marrk Keir,
FOI-21-4487-R – Internal Review response
I am writing in response to your concerns about HS2 Ltd’s handling of your request for
information (our reference: FOI-21-4487).
I am a member of the HS2 Ltd Senior Leadership Team appointed to carry out an independent
review of the original decision made in relation to your request, and as someone that was not
involved in the original decision.
This review of your original request is an entirely new and separate decision and is explained
as such below.
Original request
In your original request received on 14 December 2021, you sought access to the following data:
Please ho ahead with information you suggested, ie
•
Final outcome of court proceedings/hearings where HS2 Ltd is claimant or
defendant from Financial year 2016/17 to date
•
External legal costs associated with the above cases.
Internal review
As part of this review response: I have considered the following to ensure that:
1. We appropriately responded within the statutory deadlines
2. We undertook appropriate searches to identify the requested data
3. That the exemption was correctly applied
Timeliness of response
The request was received on 14 December 2021, on 15 December 2021 the request was
acknowledged. In this acknowledgement you were advised that a response would be sent on
or before 14 January 2022.
On 14 January 2022 we wrote to you in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Freedom of
Information Act (‘the Act’) to extend the time limit for responding to your request. Section
10(3) permits a public authority to extend the time limit for a further 20 working days where
more time is required to consider the public interest test. A revised due date was given of 11
February 2022, and we responded to your request on 4 February 2022. Therefore, our
response was sent in line with statutory timeframes and I find no error with point 1 above.
Identification of data requested
On investigation of this matter, I can confirm that appropriate searches were undertaken to
identify relevant data held regarding the final outcomes of court proceedings/hearings from
2016/17 to date (financial year) where HS2 Ltd is a claimant or defendant.
Having found no error of judgment in point 1 and 2 above, I went on to consider the strength
of the public interest test provided to you in our original response.
Engagement and application of Section 43(2)
Section 43(2) provides an exemption from the duty to make information available where a
disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person. In
this instance if the requested information was to be released, it would undermine HS2 Ltd’s
commercial position, by jeopardising our ability to negotiate legal cost recovery.
While I recognise and support the general arguments made in favour of openness and
transparency, having considered the factors for and against releasing the information, the
balance of the public interest is in favour of withholding the information. Therefore, I uphold
the decision provided in the original response and have provided our public interest
considerations at
Annex A for ease of reference.
Conclusion
I trust that this is now clear, and this response addresses your concerns. If you are not
content with the way we have handled your review, you may take this up in writing with the
Information Commissioner, please see further details below.
Please remember to quote reference number
FOI-21-4487-R in any future communication
relating to this request.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Jordan
Interim Quality and Assurance Director
High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
Your right to complain to HS2 Ltd and the Information Commissioner
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can
be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF