This box is not visible in the printed version.
Request date: 20 March 2026
This version was printed or saved on: 25 April 2026
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/evolution-section-116-review
I am writing to request information in relation to section 116 licence reviews conducted by the Gambling Commission, including the ongoing review concerning Evolution.
I recognise that certain information relating to ongoing investigations may be exempt from disclosure under sections 30 and/or 31 of the Act. However, I would be grateful if you could provide the following information to the extent that it does not prejudice any ongoing investigation, including in redacted, aggregated, or high-level form where appropriate.
Given the significant public and market interest in the conduct and transparency of regulatory investigations in the gambling sector, I would also ask that the Commission considers the public interest in disclosure, particularly in relation to governance, process, and accountability.
If any part of this request is considered exempt, I would appreciate it if you could specify the relevant exemption(s) and provide as much of the remaining information as possible.
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested information in relation to the section 116 licence reviews conducted by the Gambling Commission, including the ongoing review concerning Evolution. Specifically:
The Gambling Commission can confirm that some information is held falling within the scope of your request.
However, the Gambling Commission refuse to proceed with your request under section 14(1) (vexation requests) of the FOIA. Our considerations for relying on the section 14(1) exemption are detailed below.
Section 14(1)
Firstly, Section 14(1) states:
“Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.”
This exemption is designed to protect public authorities, particularly in terms of resources, by allowing authorities to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or stress.
In order to determine if a request is vexatious, the circumstances surrounding that request must be considered.
The word “vexatious” is not defined in FOIA. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance defines vexatious as “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.” This definition establishes that a public authority must consider the proportionality and justification of the FOIA request in question when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies.
The FOIA provides individuals with a greater right of access to official information in order to make public authorities more transparent and accountable. As such, it is an important constitutional right. However, the ICO also recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can cause a strain on resources, with the potential to interfere with the delivery of other services or answering legitimate requests. Vexatious requests can also be damaging to the reputation of the legislation itself, and therefore there is an emphasis on protecting public authorities’ resources from unreasonable requests.
The ICO advise that four broad themes should be considered when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies:
Please note, these themes are for guidance only and are not an exhaustive list. As mentioned, all circumstances of the case need to be considered in reaching an ultimate judgement as to whether the request is vexatious.
There is no obligation for a public authority to explain why the request is vexatious. The code of practice issued by the Cabinet Office under section 45 states that when refusing a request under s14(1), a public authority is not required to explain why the request is vexatious, but comments that a public authority may wish to do so as part of its duty under section 16.
Therefore, although we are not legally obliged to provide advice and assistance where a request is vexatious, we have decided to explain our considerations for refusing the request as follows.
The Number and Pattern:
Since January 2025 to date, you have submitted nine FOIA requests of a very similar nature, all relating to the Section 116 licence review conducted by the Gambling Commission concerning Evolution Malta Holding Limited’s operating licence.
Common themes across all nine FOIA requests include:
All nine FOIA requests were responded to in a timely manner directing you to the already published information relating to the case and advising that any other information in relation to the operator, other than what is made publicly available, is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(g) and section 31(3) of the FOIA (‘law enforcement’) and therefore will not be released.
Two of your nine FOIA requests have also undergone an internal review. Both of these internal reviews were conducted by a member of staff who was not involved in the original requests. Both of the internal reviews were upheld, and we reiterated our position that information in relation to the operator is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(g) and section 31(3) of the FOIA. This has generated a significant workload for the Commission and has resulted in a diversion of resources, particularly as different departments within the Commission have been contacted for their assistance for each individual request.
In light of your most recent request, the Commission have since reviewed our position in responding to your previous requests and subsequent reviews and believe that we have responded appropriately and consistently.
Duration:
The duration over which you have submitted your requests also needs to be considered. As your requests have been submitted over a long period of time, we have to consider that requests may continue to be made in the future. Therefore, even if the latest request appears entirely reasonable, when viewed in isolation, the Commission has to take into account the anticipated burden of those future requests when assessing the overall burden.
The Value or Serious Purpose:
Whilst the Commission is unsure of the motive for your request, we recognise that you may be seeking greater transparency into the Section 116 licence review conducted by the Gambling Commission concerning Evolution Malta Holding Limited’s operating licence.
However, within our previous FOIA responses in relation to this subject, the Commission have repeatedly advised that the investigation into Evolution remains ongoing and therefore any other information relating to the case is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(g) and section 31(3) of the FOIA.
The Commission have published information in relation to this case into the public domain where suitable, including the commencement of the review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited’s operating licence in December 2024: Regarding review by UK Gambling Commission (opens in a new tab).
The Commission have also repeatedly advised that if a formal decision is made in relation to this case, the Commission will ordinarily publish all such information in full. We therefore believe there is limited value in continuing to process your request as the investigation has been confirmed as ongoing. Fulfilling your request may prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work of the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that continuing to respond to your request in relation to Evolution would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the Commission and would cause a disproportionate level of disruption to its resources, diverting staff time away from carrying out its regulatory functions.
As previously advised, any decision regarding regulatory action taken against operators is usually published on the Commission’s website here: Regulatory actions
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission