Information Appeal: Boris Johnson Briefing Pack

This was an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal concerning information held by the Cabinet Office about the meetings in 2021 and 2022 between the then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Indian businessman Gautam Adani. The meetings allegedly facilitated Adani Green Energy’s sponsorship of the Science Museum’s new ‘Energy Revolution’ Gallery. Our client, Christopher Garrard, appealed the Information Commissioner’s decision to maintain redactions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

In 2021 and 2022, the then-Prime Minister, Boris Johnson met Indian businessman, Gautam Adani on two occasions. Mr Adani is the head the Adani Group, an international conglomerate with interests in energy infrastructure. Mr Adani and the Adani Group are under increasing public scrutiny from climate campaigners who criticise their involvement in coal extraction in India and Australia. However, in October 2021,  it was announced that  Adani Green Energy would be sponsoring the Science Museum’s new ‘Energy Revolution’ Gallery.

Against this backdrop, Christopher Garrard, an investigative journalist and campaigner for Culture Unstained, made a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office for documents about meetings between the former Prime Minister and Mr Adani.

The Cabinet Office first refused the request citing exemptions relating to international relations (s.27(1)(c)) and government policy (s.27(1)(d). It later added further reasons based on prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (s.36(2)). The refusal was upheld by the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted that there was a legitimate public interest in disclosing information relating to meetings involving the UK Prime Minister but that this was outweighed by the risk of prejudice to international relations. An appeal was submitted to the First-tier Tribunal.

Adding to the controversy, in the lead-up to the Tribunal hearing, a complaint was filed by the US Securities Exchange Commissioner against Mr Adani. The allegation related to a bribery scheme involving the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars to try to obtain contracts that benefitted Adani Green Energy. The alleged scheme involved paying or promising to pay bribes worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Indian state government officials to induce Indian state governments to enter into contracts. By a Grand Jury indictment in October 2024 criminal charges were levied by the US Department of Justice against a number of defendants, including Gautam Adani, on a similar factual basis to the US Securities Exchange Complaint.

Shortly before the Appeal hearing, the Cabinet Office disclosed most of the withheld information save for 5 redactions. The First-Tier Tribunal handed down judgment on 20 March 2025, finding that:

• Evidence about the US criminal indictment and SEC charges were admissible as they shed light on the context at the time of the request. It was irrelevant that this information emerged after the request was made.
• On the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office held further information within the scope of the request. It was ordered to carry out an entirely fresh search for information.
• A small part of the information that the Cabinet Office had said was out of scope was within scope.
• The reliance on s.36 was rejected – although the Minister for the Cabinet Office had provided an opinion that prejudice would likely be caused by the disclosure, there was no evidential or factual reasoned basis for that conclusion.
• S.27 was engaged for some but not all of the withheld material – it was not accepted that the disclosure of those two aspects would risk causing prejudice.
• For one of the remaining 5 pieces of withheld information, even where s.27 was engaged and there was a very clear public interest in avoiding any risk of damage to the UK’ s interests abroad, the public interest favoured disclosure.
• For the remaining 4 pieces, s.27 was engaged and the public interest in avoiding any risk of damage to the UK’ s interests abroad outweighed the very high public interest.

This was a very positive outcome: the disclosure of all of the material apart from 3 redacted passages was achieved. It demonstrates the value of an appeal and the willingness of the First tier Tribunal to reach a different conclusion to the Government and the ICO.

Oliver Jackson of 11 King’s Bench Walk was instructed as counsel.