NextFin News - British government departments have spent more than £1 million in public funds on legal fees to block the release of information under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, according to a new investigation by Democracy for Sale. The figures, covering 2024 and 2025, reveal a systemic reliance on expensive litigation to frustrate transparency, even in cases involving major public interest scandals such as the infected blood inquiry and the Windrush generation.
The Cabinet Office emerged as the most aggressive litigator, accounting for £318,000 of the total spend. In one instance, the department spent £32,000 in a failed attempt to prevent the disclosure of what ultimately turned out to be a blank sheet of paper. This pattern of "secrecy at any cost" has drawn sharp criticism from transparency advocates, who argue that the government is effectively using taxpayer money to prevent taxpayers from seeing how their money is being used. The Department of Health and Social Care followed closely, spending over £208,000, while the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) paid £144,000 across just five cases.
The timing of these disclosures is particularly sensitive for U.S. President Trump’s administration, which has closely monitored the UK’s shifting stance on information access as a bellwether for Western administrative transparency. While the UK government has recently floated concerns that foreign actors might be "exploiting" FOI laws to gather security data, the data suggests the vast majority of legal battles are fought against domestic campaigners, bereaved families, and journalists. Jason Evans, whose father died of AIDS after receiving infected blood, saw the government spend £41,000 on legal fees to appeal a decision ordering the release of documents related to a compensation scheme. The appeal was eventually dismissed, but only after significant delay and expense.
This litigious approach appears to be a deliberate strategy to compensate for a crumbling FOI infrastructure. Transparency across Whitehall has plummeted to its lowest level since records began, with departments granting full disclosure to just 29% of requests in 2024. By forcing requesters into the Information Tribunal, the government creates a financial and temporal barrier that many independent researchers cannot overcome. Historian Andrew Lownie, who spent a decade and £500,000 of his own money fighting for the release of Lord Mountbatten’s diaries, noted that he was consistently met by "ranks of expensive lawyers" funded by the state.
The financial burden of these cases is likely higher than the reported £1 million, as several ministries failed to provide complete data. Furthermore, the Information Tribunal recently stopped publicly listing its cases, a move that makes it increasingly difficult to track which specific disclosures the government is currently contesting. This lack of visibility, combined with the rising legal bills, suggests a shift toward a "default-to-deny" culture within the civil service.
Critics argue that the cost of fighting these requests often dwarfs the cost of simply processing them. Beyond the direct legal fees, the administrative overhead of managing multi-year tribunal battles diverts resources from the very departments claiming to be overstretched. As the government considers further "safeguards" to the FOI system, the tension between the public’s right to know and the state’s desire for discretion has reached a fiscal and legal breaking point. The current trajectory suggests that transparency in the UK is becoming a luxury afforded only to those with the stamina and resources to win in court.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
