low scores or negative comments about the bidding businesses would damage their commercial interests by adversely affecting their reputation, and further that the commercial interests of COI would be damaged as disclosure of the disputed information would deter businesses from tendering, or providing adequate information, in the future. The Tribunal found that: the meaning of 'likely to prejudice' was that there would be a real and significant risk, or 'weighty chance', of detriment or damage to the commercial interests of a party; the commercial interests of the bidding business would not be prejudiced by disclosure of the information as there was no commercially sensitive information or performance related comment in the evaluation information - it was held that although an application form was described as 'not great' and the applicant 'would not be able to handle COI's business', these comments were about entirely objective matters and therefore did not reflect negative opinion; and the commercial interests of COI would not be prejudiced as the COI had established tendering procedures that businesses would have to abide by, and most businesses were aware that as a public body the COI was subject to FOIA disclosure obligations. As the test had not been met the COI was obliged to disclose the disputed information. Fred wins. Go Fred! The court considered as an aside that the public interest in maintaining the exception did not outweigh the 'very strong public interest in promoting transparency and accountability in relation to tendering and procurement decisions of the