This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Cllr Millar/ Lee Hagan & St James hotel 2014 A payment made from the Mayor of £10,000'.

Enquiries to: 
Information Team
Our Ref: 
FOI 4043454 
Dear Mr Bett
Freedom of Information Request 4043454
Thank you for your recent request. Your request was actioned under the 
Freedom of Information Act 2000 in which you requested the fol owing 
information –
Liverpool's Cabinet Member of Business and Enterprise Councillor Gary Millar 
& director of BID Liverpool. 

Dear Cllr Gary Millar, 
1. Could you please supply all the details as to your involvement with 
acting as one of the judges at, Liverpool's 30 James Street Titanic Hotel, 
which won an Independent Award from Awards founder and editor of the 
Collective Magazine, Lee Hagan. 

Ref: Liverpool's Signature Living group behind the 30 James Street Hotel 
was awarded the Independent accolade at the Collective Honours 
By: Echo reporter Georgia Morgan 28TH November 2014. 

2. Were you paid any fees from Signature Living, or Mr & Mrs Kenwright 
for your input? 

3. Were you involved in getting the Mayor of Liverpool (Joe Anderson) to 
gift or donate a £10,000 payment to Collective Magazine, Lee Hagen? 

4. Cllr Millar that night in question did you work with Daniel Hughes or 
Hughes PR and Echo reporter 'Georgia Morgan who was a host for that 

5. Cllr Millar both the Collective Magazine and its founder are nowhere to 
be found in Liverpool at all, and in fact he is now using a fake name on 
line, do you still deal with him and how does one buy his magazine, if 
there was ever one? 

6. . Cllr Millar you are a member (director) of BID could you explain the 
reasons as to while ordinary businesses struggle within the city centre, 
yet Lawrence Kenwright enjoys paying not one penny in BID fees, why is 
this Cllr Millar, BID is Constituted by UK law in 2004 and have you or BID 
not taken any legal action over none payment? 


7. BID has 1,500 BID Levy Payers in Liverpool; Cllr Millar you are a 
director of BID so what role do you play in this company?

We would advise that Freedom of Information legislation relates to information 
held by public authorities and does not extend to require the provision of 
explanations or for matters which do not relate to City Council business. As 
such and in respect to all elements of your request, Liverpool City Council do 
not hold any such information. 
In addition to the above point, we note that elements of your request comprise 
comment, speculation, opinion and innuendo. We would therefore draw your 
attention to the following responses. 
Notice of Application of Section 14 (1) – Vexatious Request – applied to 
this request and subsequent requests of the same or similar nature
With regard to the submission of speculative requests which comprise 
innuendo, comment, opinion and potentially defamatory statements, Liverpool 
City Council would advise that Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 
2000 allows a Local Authority to refuse what is deemed to be a vexatious 
request with reference to the worthiness of the request as placed against the 
impact it would have on the Local Authority.
Consequently the City Council feels that the application of Section 14 of the 
Freedom of Information Act 2000 is appropriate in these circumstances and 
would refer you to Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & 
Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013) 
in which the Upper 
Tribunal took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word 
vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a request is 
vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding that 
In further exploring the role played by circumstances, the Tribunal placed 
particular emphasis on the issue of whether the request has adequate or 
proper justification. They also cited two previous section 14(1) decisions 
where the lack of proportionality in the requester’s previous dealings with the 
authority was deemed to be a relevant consideration by the First Tier 
After taking these factors into account, the Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ 
could be defined as the “…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper 
use of a formal procedure.
’ (paragraph 27).
Officers within the City Council, while always adhering to their responsibilities 
and obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 should not be 
expected to be subject to such levels of public scrutiny of their performance 
and the City Council considers this type of request to be bordering upon an 
abuse of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and there is no justification for 
officers to, in practice, cease their everyday activities and review all records 
in a manner disruptive to the conduct of operational legislative duties solely to 
satisfy a request such as this.

The City Council considers this is a request specifically designed to cause 
disruption to the relevant Officers and Service Areas identified by generated 
additional administrative and bureaucratic work and, consequently, it will not 
be providing the information asked for in this element of your request.
While the Act can, indirectly, ensure officers are held to public account the City 
Council already has such processes in place and there is no requirement for 
members of the public to feel they need to assume this role, either on behalf of 
the City Council or other members of the public. It is on this basis that the City 
Council considers that the application of Section 14 (1) is entirely appropriate 
to the requests concerned. 
The City Council would further advise that any requests of the same or 
similar nature received will again be viewed in the context of a Section 14 (1) 
exemption and no responses provided. 
Warning – Submission of Information Requests with potentially 
Defamatory Content
It is our assessment that elements of your request are in whole or part 
defamatory in nature, that these identify or refer to individuals and are being 
published by yourself through the use of a public website forum to third 
We would further advise you that the defamatory statements made by 
yourself either directly or through recognised aliases and contained within the 
information requests referenced above fall within the meaning of Article 
14(1)(a) of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). Under the law of 
England and Wales, a defamatory statement is one which tends to lower the 
claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally (Sim 
v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237).
We would further advise that a defamatory statement is published at the 
place where it is read, heard or seen, and is not where the material was first 
placed on the internet. In internet cases, therefore, provided a small number 
of people have access to the material on the internet in England, the English 
courts will have jurisdiction to hear the claim against a foreign defendant 
(Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] A.C. 460).
We would therefore advise that you take prompt action to remove or disabled 
access to the Offending Webpages.
In the event that this confirmation is not received, the individuals named 
directly or by implication within the above referenced information requests 
and publicly displayed on the Offending Websites shall reserve the right to 
issue proceedings against you seeking relief for defamation. 
The remedies that may be available to the these individuals include an 
injunction restraining further publication of the Offending Statement [pending 
trial], damages, legal costs and interest.

This concludes our response. 
In accordance with the application of Sections 14 of the Freedom of 
Information Act 2000 we have not provided all of the information requested. As 
such this letter serves as a Section 17 Notice under the Freedom of 
Information Act 2000.
The City Council will consider appeals, referrals or complaints in respect of 
your Freedom of Information Act 2000 and you must submit these in writing 
to within 28 days of receiving your 
response. The matter will be dealt with by an officer who was not previously 
involved with the response and we will look to provide a response within 40 
If you remain dissatisfied you may also apply to the Information 
Commissioner for a decision about whether the request for 
information has been dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of 
Information Act 2000.
The Information Commissioner’s website is and the 
postal address and telephone numbers are:- Information 
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, 
Cheshire SK95AF.  Telephone 0303 123 1113.  Email – (they advise that their email is not secure)
We trust this information satisfies your enquiry. 
Yours sincerely
A Lewis
Information Team