Moss v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

Section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 does not permit a relevant authority to refuse to process an inspection request because compliance would take substantial time or incur significant administrative cost. Parliament imposed express limits through the inspection period and statutory exemptions, and provided a proportionality safeguard for auditors under section 27(4), but not for authorities under section 26.

The right may extend to a broad range of accounts-related documents. An authority’s document-management arrangements cannot define the extent of the statutory right, although it may assist an applicant to refine a request. Personal information is exempt without a public-interest qualification. Commercially confidential information is exempt only where disclosure would prejudice confidentiality and there is no overriding public interest in disclosure.

The claimant sought inspection under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 of invoices, contracts and other documents relating to the defendant council’s housing expenditure for 2018–19. The council supplied some documents, often with redactions, but refused to process the outstanding request after estimating that locating, reviewing and redacting the material would require substantially more than 18 hours.

The claimant challenged the refusal on three grounds: that section 26 contained no time-to-comply limitation; that the council had created a legitimate expectation that contracts would be provided; and that its reasons for redacting invoices were inadequate. The central issues were the proper construction of section 26 and the adequacy of the council’s reasons.

1. Statutory construction. The claim succeeded insofar as the council refused to process the request on grounds of the time required. On its ordinary meaning, section 26 contains no power to refuse an inspection request because of the authority’s time or compliance costs. The breadth of the documents covered, and the requirement under regulation 14(3) of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 that they be available at reasonable times during the inspection period, pointed against implying such a power.
2. The contrast with section 27(4) was significant. That provision expressly permits an auditor to decline an objection where the cost of considering it would be disproportionate, subject to an exception for serious concerns about financial management. The absence of a corresponding control in section 26 indicated that Parliament did not intend the inspection right to be curtailed by the authority’s processing burden.
3. The right is not confined by the number of people exercising it, nor by the authority’s internal document-management systems. Accounts-related documents may include a potentially extensive range of contracts, invoices and supporting material. Authorities may, however, assist applicants to narrow or prioritise requests and thereby reduce the practical burden.
4. Redactions and reasons. The statutory exemptions remained applicable. Personal information under section 26(6) was not subject to a public-interest qualification. Commercial confidentiality under sections 26(4) and (5) required consideration of whether disclosure would prejudice confidentiality and whether an overriding public interest favoured disclosure. The council’s reasons, read as a whole, adequately explained that personal data and individual supplier rates had been withheld, while supplier names and total expenditure were disclosed. The challenge to the redactions therefore failed.
5. The legitimate-expectation ground did not arise. The parties were invited to agree the form of order, with further submissions if necessary.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a first-instance judicial review decision.