Diane Wilmore case, implications for Stockport council taxpayers - not a vexatious point to raise at all.

Sheila Oliver made this Freedom of Information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

The Chief Executive, Eamonn Boylan, had finally admitted to the local MP that there will be no asbestos insurance for the toxic waste dump school and that the Council was aware it would be uninsurable in that respect from the outset.

When I raised the matter of the Diane Willmore Supreme Court judgement and the implications for the Council - that they were automatically legally responsible for any cases of mesothelioma contracted in schools - I was still branded vexatious. There are massive financial implications for the Council and the council taxpayer following this Supreme Court judgement, and this most certainly was not a vexatious point to raise, which the Council Solicitor must have been aware of.

I think I have to also report this matter to the Law Society with regards to the Council Solicitor and I think it is time to take legal action against the Council for defamation to restore my reputation as a local campaigner.

I would like you to start answering all the questions I have posted on this site with regards to the toxic waste dump school.

I shall copy this request to the Council's insurance underwriters, who might have doubts about the professional integrity of some of the senior council officers at Stockport whom they have to insure for professional indemnity

Yours faithfully,


FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your email below (ref 4398).

You do not appear to be asking for any information in your email; however
as you have previously been informed, your requests for information about
Harcourt Street are considered to be vexatious under section 14(1) Freedom
of Information Act 2000 and manifestly unreasonable under Regulation
12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and will not receive a
response. This decision has been through the Council’s internal review
process and was upheld. It has also been investigated by the Information
Commissioner’s Office at your request; the ICO upheld the Council’s
decision in its Decision Notice.

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

show quoted sections