Alan David Sokal v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 795 (GRC)
Adnan Ali v The Information Commissioner
8 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 371 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked UCL for a report about possibly unfair appointments. UCL said no, citing confidentiality. A judge agreed that some parts should remain secret to protect people, but ordered UCL to release other parts because the public has a right to know how public money is spent and whether rules were followed. Some names and details were redacted to protect privacy.
Key Facts
- •Adnan Ali (Appellant) requested information from University College London (UCL) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) relating to an investigation report concerning allegations of improper appointments.
- •UCL refused the request, relying on FOIA sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c).
- •The Information Commissioner (IC) upheld UCL's refusal.
- •Ali appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
- •The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ordering partial disclosure of the report with redactions.
Legal Principles
FOIA section 1(1) grants a right to information unless it is exempt.
FOIA
FOIA section 2(2) provides for a public interest test where information is exempt under Part II.
FOIA
FOIA section 36(2)(b)(ii) exempts information likely to inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for deliberation; a qualified person's opinion is reasonable and to be afforded respect, but not conclusive.
FOIA and case law (Guardian Newspapers Ltd and Brooke v IC, Information Commissioner v Malnick)
The public interest test under section 2(2)(b) applies to section 36(2) exemptions.
FOIA and case law
Public interest must be assessed at the time of the public authority's initial decision (Montague v Information Commissioner).
Case law
FOIA section 40 exempts personal data of the applicant (absolute exemption).
FOIA
Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR requires lawful and fair processing of personal data.
UK GDPR
Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR permits processing for legitimate interests unless overridden by data subject's rights.
UK GDPR
Identifiability of personal data is assessed based on whether identification is possible using reasonably likely means (NHS Business Services Authority v Information Commissioner).
Case law
The Tribunal's powers under FOIA section 58 include allowing appeals if the notice is unlawful or the discretion was wrongly exercised.
FOIA
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Tribunal found that the IC's decision was not in accordance with the law. While the qualified person's opinion regarding section 36(2)(b)(ii) was reasonable, the public interest in disclosure of a redacted version of the first 12 pages of the report outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Tribunal also considered section 40 (personal data) and made further redactions accordingly.
Similar Cases
Nina Freedman v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 503 (GRC)
Department of Work and Pensions v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 334 (GRC)
Michelle Currie v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 311 (GRC)
Stephen John Gullick v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 985 (GRC)