Devant Maharaj v National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)

Under the Freedom of Information Act 1999, once a statutory exemption applies, section 35 requires the public authority to balance all relevant public-interest factors for and against disclosure. Judicial review ordinarily involves reviewing the authority’s decision for legality and rationality, rather than substituting the court’s own view of the public interest. The request and refusal may be read together. An authority must consider relevant factors known to it, but need not imagine every possible factor or conduct an excessively onerous inquiry. Its reasons must be intelligible and adequate. Before undertaking the section 35 balance, it must consider whether redactions would remove the exemption.

The appellant sought documents from the National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago under the Freedom of Information Act 1999 concerning a proposed gas pipeline agreement involving Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela. NGC refused disclosure, relying on statutory exemptions and stating that the public interest did not justify disclosure.

The High Court dismissed the judicial review claim in Claim No. CV2019-02084. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in CA No S275 of 2020, by majority, while the dissenting judge would have remitted the decision. The central issues before the Board were the proper standard of judicial review, the adequacy of NGC’s reasons, and whether the section 35 balancing exercise had been lawfully performed.

1. Disposition. The Board dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal majority was correct to uphold NGC’s refusal of disclosure.
2. Construction of FOIA. The general right of access under the Freedom of Information Act 1999 is qualified by the exemptions in Part IV. Section 3(1)(b) does not impose an additional necessity test. Where an exemption applies, section 35 supplies the relevant disclosure test.
3. Section 35. The first limb requires disclosure where reasonable evidence establishes significant abuse of authority, neglect of official duty, injustice, danger to health or safety, or unauthorised use of public funds. That limb was not engaged. The second limb requires an assessment, in all the circumstances, of the public-interest benefits and damage arising from disclosure. Section 16(2) requires consideration of practicable redactions before that balancing exercise.
4. Judicial review. Under section 39(1), the court applies the ordinary review approach. It reviews the public authority’s judgment for unlawfulness, irrationality and other public-law error. It does not substitute its own assessment of the public interest. The statutory structure, the seniority of potential decision-makers under section 22(1), the duty to give reasons under section 23, and the discretion preserved under section 38A(3) all supported that conclusion.
5. Reasons and application. The standard described in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33 applied. The 18 December request identified the factors favouring disclosure, and the 6 February response explained why NGC considered the countervailing factors stronger. Read together, the documents showed that the relevant balance had been addressed and provided adequate reasons. The decision was not irrational or unlawful. The Board did not need to decide whether later affidavits could cure defective reasons.
6. General guidance. Where an applicant identifies no factors, or the authority knows of further relevant factors, the authority must consider the public-interest factors on both sides. The obligation is demanding but must remain within reasonable bounds. The identification of relevant factors and any necessary inquiries are governed by ordinary rationality standards.

1. Privy Council — In [2026] UKPC 14, the appeal was dismissed.
2. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago — In CA No S275 of 2020, the majority dismissed the appeal from the High Court. Boodoosingh JA dissented and would have remitted the disclosure decision to NGC.
3. High Court of Trinidad and Tobago — In Claim No. CV2019-02084, the judicial review claim was dismissed.