This is a significant question.

It is clear from the Tribunal docs and Appeals docs that the whole case had nothing to do with the Mayoral position. In fact, the Appeals tribunal was solely about holiday pay remuneration etc.
Could this be Malfeasance While In Public Office [improper claims from public funds]? If so, this would implicate not only Mayor Anderson but also the City Solicitor and CEO

Having read both the Tribunal doc. and the Appeal Tribunal doc. it is crystal clear that neither had anything to do with the position of Mayor. Anderson just wanted two pay packets. As I said before, the Appeal Tribunal was only about holiday pay etc. This sounds like alleged misappropriation of public funds.
Anderson,Fitzgerald, McLoughlin and Hellard think they have total control of everything and everybody in LCC.........NOT THE CASE. Little do they know that Audrey will NEVER give up!

Hi Audrey,
I would definitely appeal to the Information Commissioner about the application of the Section 42 exemption (LPP) to your request for the documentation.
The Internal Review contains the following assertion:
"Notwithstanding the limited level of public interest in this issue as evidenced through information requests from a limited number of individuals, in determining the application of Advice Privilege and the engagement of a Section 42 Exemption under Freedom of Information legislation, it is considered the importance of maintaining the necessary quality of confidence to communications and advice between client and lawyer is such as to
significantly outweigh any public interest in disclosure."
Ludicrous.
To seriously suggest that there is only a "the limited level of public interest in this issue" as "evidenced through information requests from a limited number of individuals" is bizarre. The issue was quite rightly widely reported in the press, both local and all the big nationals, on the BBC - in news programmes and on its websites, and in countless online news sites, blogs, etc. etc. And it is still raised almost every time Joe Anderson manages to get his name in the Echo.
But the reason the correspondence and advice should be released is not because there is a lot of public interest (i.e. curiosity/nosiness) about it, it's because it is IN the public interest to release it. People are still outraged about the whole thing, and it has undermined their trust in the competence and professionalism of the Council and its officers to have spent a large sum of public money on what appears to be a personal matter. At a time of massive cuts in essential services. So it surely is in the public interest to publish the documents that substantiate their assertions that it was appropriate.
Joe Anderson and Ged Fitzgerald have repeatedly claimed that the decision was solidly based on legal advice that stated that it was in the Council's interest, i.e. in the public interest, to fund the case. You cannot do this and then hide behind legal privilege. It's having your cake and eating it. If this really is as solidly based as they claim, they should release the advice and correspondence you have asked for, redacting any irrelevant personal information.

Katie and Audrey, the public interest test is just that, the level of public interest there is in releasing what you're after. Just because you want it and provide any kind of argumement reinforcing your opinion doesn't mean release is either a given or is warranted.

Genuinely, this isn't meant as a dig, but this insistance on pushing for public interest tests over almost every issue does no good and only reinforces the view, some may have, that this website harbours and assist individuals with the odd grudge.

Hello George
Thank you for your comments - I don't hold a grudge and I'm sure Kate doesn't. The reason I asked this FOI Mayor Anderson at 'The Black Lives Matter' rally when approached by members of the public re the 89k he told them [quote] '' I paid the money back last week'' if the Mayor had paid back the 89.500 it should be highlighted, I was asking for clarification .....sadly The Mayor was being sarcastic.
Mayor Anderson has removed all Scrutiny from the authority he will not allow any critical observation this is the reason the public submit FOI's
'' I did not ask for an internal review''
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/201...

George, please look at the ICO guidance. You seem to have comprehensively misunderstood the Freedom of Information Act. Over and over again, in its guidance on the various exemptions, and in its decisions on appeals, the ICO makes two points:
the first, that a public interest test has to be carried out in the overwhelming majority of exemptions. So it really isn't a question of people pushing for it, it's supposed to happen, and must be carried out properly (i.e., in accordance with the law and guidance);
and the second is that you do not measure whether or not something is in the public interest by looking at whether or not people find it interesting, and how many of them there may be. This point is made repeatedly in most ICO decisions. It's not about curiosity, it's about whether people should know about it.
The "in the public interest" argument that wins most appeals - mine for the KPMG stuff, for example - is usually
based on the requirement for decisions to be properly transparent, and for decision-takers to be properly accountable, especially when large sums of public money is involved. Which means the whats, whens and hows. And that's what this request is about, and why I think it will win if appealed to the ICO.