[Kizzy]

The case stems from a freedom of information request in 2010 by a Sunday Telegraph journalist to Ipsa relating to disclosure of three specific receipts submitted by MPs in support of their claims. The reporter wanted copies of the originals, but was provided with a typed transcript. He complained to the information commissioner, who ruled in his favour in 2012, ordering that the receipts be disclosed.

Following that decision, Ipsa lost its case at two tribunal hearings.

'After dismissing the latest appeal on Tuesday, Lord Justice Richards said the order that copies of the original documents should be released would be put on hold pending any move by Ipsa to the supreme court.

An Ipsa spokesman said after the ruling: “We need to study the judgment carefully. The court made clear that this is an important test case with implications not just for Ipsa but for all other public bodies.

“We were right to test the point of law through an appeal to see whether images of receipts add anything additional to all the information about MPs’ expenditure that we already release.'

How is it that there is less transparency, is this yet another example of 'us and them'...
How much public money are they spending why can't we know, and how are they allowed to spend more challenging decisions that we be prevented from knowing?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...xpenses-ruling