Regulation 10(4)(b) - Manifestly unreasonable requests

Challenge a refusal under EIR regulation 10(4)(b) - the authority says your request is manifestly unreasonable

What this exception means#

The authority is saying your request is “manifestly unreasonable.” This is the EIR equivalent of the “vexatious” provision under FOISA (section 14), but with an important difference: under the EIRs, this exception is subject to a public interest test. Under FOISA, section 14 is a procedural refusal with no public interest test.

The word “manifestly” sets a high bar. A request is not manifestly unreasonable simply because it involves a lot of work. The authority must show that the request is clearly and obviously unreasonable - mere inconvenience is not enough.

What the authority must show#

For this exception to apply, the authority must demonstrate that:

The request is manifestly unreasonable - not just difficult, inconvenient, or time-consuming
Why it considers the request manifestly unreasonable - with specific reasons, not just an assertion
It has considered its duty to advise and assist - including offering to help you narrow or reformulate the request
The public interest in withholding outweighs the public interest in disclosure

Things to check#

Did they explain why it’s manifestly unreasonable? The authority must provide specific reasons. “This would take too long” or “this is too much work” is not enough on its own. They need to explain what makes this request manifestly unreasonable rather than just inconvenient.
“Manifestly” is a high bar. It means clearly, obviously, and undeniably unreasonable. A request that requires significant work may still not be manifestly unreasonable, particularly where there is a strong public interest in the information.
Did they offer to help you narrow your request? Before refusing, the authority should have considered whether it could help you reformulate or narrow your request to make it manageable. If they refused without offering this help, that’s a basis for challenge.
Is the request itself unreasonable, or just the volume of work? There’s a difference between a request that is unreasonable in itself (for example, designed to harass or with no serious purpose) and a request that involves a large volume of work but has genuine purpose. The authority should distinguish between these.
Did they consider the public interest? Unlike FOISA’s vexatious provision, this exception is subject to a public interest test. Even if the request is manifestly unreasonable, the authority must consider whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in refusing.
Campaigning is legitimate. Making repeated requests about an issue you care about is legitimate democratic participation. An authority cannot treat you as manifestly unreasonable simply because you are persistent about a matter of public concern.

Use the interactive tool#

Answer the questions below to check whether regulation 10(4)(b) has been properly applied to your request.

What the evidence shows

Arguments that have supported disclosure

In cases where the public interest test favoured disclosure, these themes appeared most often.

Environmental accountability There is a public interest in transparency about environmental issues, including potential enforcement failures and regulatory compliance
Spending of public money The public has a right to know how millions of pounds of public money are spent on environmental matters
Aarhus Convention rights The right to access environmental information is protected under the Aarhus Convention, which the EIRs implement
Community and habitat protection Where communities or natural habitats are affected, there is a particularly strong interest in having information available

What authorities typically argue

These are the arguments authorities most commonly make when withholding information under this exception. Knowing them helps you prepare a stronger case.

Unreasonable burden on resources Authorities argue that responding would divert significant staff time and resources from their core statutory functions
Protecting effective use of public resources There is a public interest in ensuring EIR requests do not consume resources disproportionate to the value of the information
Maintaining the authority's ability to function Authorities claim they need to carry out their statutory functions without unreasonable disruption from information requests
Responsible use of the EIRs The EIRs should be used proportionately, and manifestly unreasonable requests undermine the regime for everyone

Factors that tipped the balance

In decisions where the Commissioner ordered disclosure, these factors were decisive.

Specific environmental interest was strong The Commissioner found a significant public interest in the specific environmental issues raised that outweighed the burden
Authority's own failings contributed to the burden Where the authority's own shortcomings in publishing information compounded the burden, that weakened the case for refusal
Public interest outweighed the cost The value of the environmental information being in the public domain outweighed the burden on the authority's resources

Based on published decisions of the Scottish Information Commissioner. You can browse the decisions on the Commissioner's website.