The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has lost two appeals concerning access to records of plant protection product use, after the First-tier Tribunal found that the information was held on HSE’s behalf and that the requests could not be refused as manifestly unreasonable.
What did the Tribunal decide?
In Health and Safety Executive v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKFTT 1448 (GRC), the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber, Information Rights) dismissed HSE’s appeals. The decision was given on 22 October 2026 following a hearing on 1 May 2026.
The Tribunal considered whether records that farmers and other professional users are required to maintain under Article 67 were held by those users on HSE’s behalf under regulation 3(2)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). It also considered whether the burden of responding to two geographically limited requests justified refusal under regulation 12(4)(b).
The Tribunal rejected HSE’s challenges on both issues. It concluded that the requested information was held on HSE’s behalf and that neither request was manifestly unreasonable. The appeals were dismissed.
What were the information requests?
The two requests concerned records of plant protection products used in specified areas of Wales. The Tribunal heard the appeals together because they raised common questions under the EIR, although their geographical scope, time periods and likely workload differed.
| Request | Information sought | Estimated workload |
|---|---|---|
| Carmarthen | Article 67 records concerning glyphosate use within a ten-mile radius of Carmarthen during 2022. | HSE initially estimated 302 hours, at an indicative cost of £7,550. The Commissioner estimated about 26 hours, or £650. |
| Wrexham | Information about plant protection products used in a defined area east of Wrexham during 2020–2023. The request was ultimately confined to Article 67 records relating to plant protection products used in a farming context. | HSE later estimated 264.4 hours, at an indicative cost of £6,600. The Commissioner considered that the relevant stages could take about 124 hours, or £3,100. |
The Wrexham request initially referred to both biocides and plant protection products. WildFish accepted HSE’s position that it held no relevant biocide-use information because there was no legal requirement for such use to be recorded, and narrowed the continuing request to plant protection product records.
Why were the records treated as held by HSE?
Regulation 3(2)(b) of the EIR treats environmental information as held by a public authority where it is held by another person on the authority’s behalf. HSE argued that professional users created and retained Article 67 records for their own statutory compliance and that HSE did not routinely receive or store copies.
The Tribunal accepted that HSE did not maintain a central repository, might not know in advance who held relevant records, and would generally need to take positive steps to obtain them. However, it found that Article 67 created a particular statutory relationship: professional users must generate and preserve specified information and make it available to HSE, while third parties seeking access are directed to HSE to provide access in accordance with the applicable law.
The ruling turns on the particular structure and operation of Article 67, not simply on a regulator’s power to inspect records.
The Tribunal emphasised that the decision does not establish a general rule that all records retained by regulated businesses or professionals are held on behalf of their regulator. The conclusion was specific to the obligations and access arrangements created by Article 67.
Why did the “manifestly unreasonable” argument fail?
HSE argued that identifying relevant users, contacting them, collecting records and preparing information for disclosure would consume significant staff time and resources. The Tribunal accepted that both requests would require substantial work, and that the Wrexham request was the more demanding of the two.
However, regulation 12(4)(b) does not permit refusal simply because a request is burdensome or resource-intensive. The burden must be excessive and disproportionate in the circumstances, such that the request is clearly unreasonable. The Tribunal considered the estimated work alongside the scope of each request, the value of the information and the public interest in disclosure.
For Carmarthen, the request was limited to a defined area, a single year and one product: glyphosate. For Wrexham, the burden was considerably greater and the issue was closer, but the request remained geographically and temporally defined and related to a focused environmental investigation.
The Tribunal therefore found that HSE had not established that either request was manifestly unreasonable. It also considered the alternative public-interest test. For Carmarthen, the balance favoured disclosure because the records could provide otherwise unavailable information about actual glyphosate use in a defined locality and year. For Wrexham, the balance favoured disclosure more narrowly, because the localised information could contribute to WildFish’s existing investigation and was not replicated by the available datasets.
What does the ruling mean for environmental information requests?
The decision highlights that a public authority’s obligations under the EIR may extend to information held by others where the governing statutory scheme establishes that the information is held on the authority’s behalf. The analysis depends on the specific legislation and the relationship it creates; record-keeping duties or inspection powers alone will not necessarily be enough.
It also underlines that public authorities must assess the actual burden of a request in context. A substantial workload is relevant, but it does not automatically make a request manifestly unreasonable. The defined scope of the request and the practical value of information that is otherwise unavailable may weigh in favour of disclosure.
For organisations handling environmental information requests, the judgment is a reminder to distinguish between information that is not held at all and information held on the authority’s behalf, and to support any reliance on an EIR exception with a context-specific assessment.
Frequently asked questions
What was the outcome of the HSE appeal?
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals. It found that the Article 67 records were held on HSE’s behalf and that neither request was manifestly unreasonable.
What is Article 67?
Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 requires professional users of plant protection products to keep records of their use and retain them for at least three years.
Does this mean all records held by regulated professionals are held on behalf of regulators?
No. The Tribunal expressly confined its conclusion to the particular statutory relationship created by Article 67 and said the outcome does not establish a general rule for ordinary private or professional records.
Why was the Wrexham request considered a closer case?
The Tribunal accepted that the Wrexham request would impose a greater resource burden. It nevertheless found the burden did not meet the legal threshold for a manifestly unreasonable request, taking account of the defined scope and the information’s potential value to a focused environmental investigation.
Did the Tribunal order automatic disclosure of every record?
The decision dismissed HSE’s appeals against the Commissioner’s notices requiring fresh responses without relying on regulation 12(4)(b). It does not state that every record must be disclosed irrespective of the EIR’s other applicable provisions.