A court has ordered Nottingham City Council to release a “confidential” impact assessment on cutting ties with a Chinese city after an appeal by The Chaser News.

The Labour-run council rejected a petition—signed by around 1,400 residents under its official petition scheme—calling for an end to its twinning arrangements with Ningbo, China over human rights concerns in April 2023.

Ahead of that decision, the council conducted a review and received submissions, including a five-page impact assessment labeled ‘confidential’ from Nottingham Trent University and the University of Nottingham, which has a campus in Ningbo.

The council refused to release it, along with meeting minutes and correspondence related to the review, in a Freedom of Information request by The Chaser News afterwards, amid criticisms from campaigners who said the review lacked transparency.

It claimed disclosing the impact assessment could harm the University of Nottingham’s commercial interests, and that—contradicting its previous position—the review, as an informal political process by Nottingham Labour Group Councillors, was not subject to freedom of information laws.

A senior information officer from the council criticised statements made by the then-Leader of the Council, Councillor David Mellen, to a full council meeting as ‘misleading’ despite having ruled against disclosure in an internal review; a further complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office was unsuccessful.

Now, after a 22-month campaign by The Chaser News, the First-tier Tribunal, a specialist court for information rights, has ruled that the council must publish it within 35 calendar days, finding no “causative links” between its disclosure and commercial harm to the university.

Judge Sophie Buckley also ruled that the review was “clearly council business” and thus information and relevant correspondence can be requested.

Judge ‘not persuaded’

The council and the Information Commissioner had previously claimed disclosing the impact assessment would “give a great deal of insight” into the financial contributions of international students to the university, the city, and the wider Nottinghamshire.

Rejecting that argument, Judge Buckley said: “We are not persuaded that there is any causative link between insight into the economic gain to the City and Nottinghamshire and the claimed prejudice to the commercial interests of the university.

“We are not persuaded that competitors would be assisted in luring students away from the university by the withheld information.

“We are not persuaded that disclosure would be likely to lead to any reduction in UoN’s market position in terms of overall attractiveness or a reduction in revenue in coming years.”

Much of the withheld information, she noted, was “in fairly general terms” and based on published, publicly available research.

Among the documents withheld for commercial harm are a three-page briefing note prepared by the University of Nottingham and a two-page joint statement co-authored by both Nottingham universities.

‘Misleading’

Before rejecting the petition, Labour councillors met in February 2023, and voted to retain the twinning arrangement while formally raising concerns with human rights abuses to Ningbo.

Cllr Mellen, also the portfolio holder on twinning arrangements, subsequently wrote a letter to the Chinese ambassador and the Mayor of Ningbo.

This showed that Labour councillors in the meeting and vote were not making a recommendation but rather a decision on behalf of the Council, according to the ruling.

Deciding that the review was subject to freedom of information requests, the judge said: “We do not accept that the withheld information relates or relates only to party political business rather than Council business.

“It is the Council, not the local Labour Party, that is the lead organisation in the twinning or friendship arrangements between Nottingham and other cities and towns.

“It is a function of the Council, not the local Labour party, to make decisions about whether or not to continue those relationships.”

She ordered the council to consider the remainder of the request afresh, either by releasing the withheld information or citing legal exemptions within the 35-day timeframe.

Cllr Mellen referenced the review as one “we are undertaking as a Council” to a full council meeting in January 2023, and made similar statements publicly on the council’s website and to petitioners.

The council spokesperson told the press that the twinning arrangement “had been reviewed by the city council” after it rejected the petition at that time.

In a position now rejected by the tribunal, the council’s freedom of Information officers claimed these statements were “misleading” and argued they “should have therefore made it clear that the meeting, vote and subsequent decision were made by Nottingham Labour Group councillors and not the City Council”.

Campaigners welcome judgement

Nottingham Stands With Hong Kong, a pro-Hong Kong campaign group that organised the petition, said it “welcomed the judgment”.

A spokesperson for the group said: “Releasing the relevant documents will allow the public to again see for themselves why the council has chosen to retain ties with Ningbo.

“When we initially requested the city council to conduct a public consultation, the council rejected that proposal, citing opposition from other stakeholders.

“Not only did they fail to conduct a public consultation, but they also refused to disclose the relevant details, showing a clear lack of transparency and disregard for public opinion.”

A council spokesperson said: “Nottingham City Council will need to review the decision in full before commenting further at this stage.”

Failure to comply with the ruling may result in the tribunal referring the case to the Upper Tribunal and being dealt with as a contempt of court.

Case number: [2025] UKFTT 00114 (GRC)