Philip Morris International (PMI) requested information from the University of Stirling about a project being undertaken by the University's Centre for Tobacco Control Research that deals with the effects of plain packaging on young adult smokers. The University, a public authority for the purposes of this case, refused to provide the requested information, arguing that the request was vexatious under their Freedom of Information Act. The Scottish Information Commissioner ruled in PMI's favor, concluding that, among other things, the request was not vexatious or a harassment to the University. The Commissioner emphasized that, although the request was likely to impose a significant burden on the University, it could have asked PMI to re-formulate the request and should have provided advice and assistance to PMI.
PMI v. University of Stirling, Decision 129/2011, Scottish Information Commissioner (2011).
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The Commissioner does not accept the argument from the University that its attempts to clarify the request were reasonable. The request from PMI was wide ranging, but was clearly for all of the information the University held in relation to the project in question (as noted above, the request begins, “Please provide us with any information that you hold in relation to this project
…”). The Commissioner considers that the University was using this process to press PMI to modify and narrow the scope of its request, rather than to clarify it."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Philip Morris International (PMI) requested information from the University of Stirling about a project being undertaken by the University's Centre for Tobacco Control Research that deals with the effects of plain packaging on young adult smokers. The University, a public authority for the purposes of this case, refused to provide the requested information, arguing that the request was vexatious under their Freedom of Information Act. The Scottish Information Commissioner ruled in PMI's favor, concluding that, among other things, the request was not vexatious or a harassment to the University. The Commissioner emphasized that, although the request was likely to impose a significant burden on the University, it could have asked PMI to re-formulate the request and should have provided advice and assistance to PMI.