DoI wrapped by Information Commissioner 

Department relied on 'irrelevant public interest factors'

The Department of Infrastructure relied on broad and irrelevant factors when refusing to release document under FoI. 

Information Commissioner Dr Alexandra Delaney-Bhattacharya has told the department to either disclose the information or issue a proper refusal. 

In October 2025, an FoI request was made seeking information relating to the Isle of Man Festival of Motoring event plans for 2024 and 2025.

The department refused to provide any of the information, stating that it was commercially sensitive, a decision that it then upheld during the internal review. 

However, the 2024 documents were later released to the applicant, informed by the view that they were disclosable under through the Right of Access under GDPR.

The DoI applied three time extensions throughout the processing period of the original request, eventually responding to the applicant on the 32nd working day. 

When the applicant then appealed against the refusal issued, the DoI took  151 working days to issue its internal review response. 

While Dr Delaney-Bhattacharya acknowledged the timeframe is not set out in the FoI act, she said the time it took was 'unacceptable and expects the authority to prevent such significant delays from recurring'.

The internal review noted that an additional 58 page document that had been provided to the applicant was provided on the grounds that 'the requestor could have been offered the opportunity to apply for access to their own data via an application for a DSAR, Data Subject Access Request'.

The Info Commissioner said that she 'firmly rejects the assertion that this disclosure constitutes information to be included within a DSAR' and reminded the department of its responsibilities. 

It was also highlighted that was 'no evidence the applicant ever submitted a DSAR and the material in question was commercial information falling outside the scope of such a request'.

In outlining her reasons for ruling against the DoI, Dr Delaney-Bhattacharya added: "The authority applied a blanket exemption to all information, without evidencing the assessment of individual pieces of information held to assess where redactions may have been appropriate.

"The authority withheld information using a qualified exemption, which requires a public interest test. However, the factors cited were broad and did not show the specific prejudice in this instance, nor was there any evidence of the relevance of the factors when the exempt documents were reviewed."

She also recorded that the DoI consulted with a third party and released a document which 'included statements demonstrating the third party likely knew the identity of the requester and also had the potential to cause unnecessary conflict'.

It was also suggested that the department should assess whether a data breach occurred with the sharing of the personal data.

A DoI spokesperson told Manx Radio: "The department acknowledges the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice and is in the process of considering its approach to the handling of Freedom of Information requests."