Stephen John Gullick v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 985 (GRC)
Andrew Sheldon v The Information Commissioner & Anor
20 March 2024
[2024] UKFTT 231 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the council for meeting information. The council refused, saying it might reveal private information about staff. A court agreed because the person asking already had some information which would easily allow them to identify any staff mentioned in the council records.
Key Facts
- •Andrew Sheldon (Appellant) appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner (Commissioner) upholding Castle Point Borough Council's (Council) refusal to confirm or deny holding requested information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The Request sought agendas, minutes, and report titles from Council meetings between August 15th and 30th, 2022.
- •The Council argued that confirming or denying would indirectly reveal personal data about staff potentially subject to disciplinary proceedings.
- •Sheldon, a former Council leader, possessed knowledge that could facilitate indirect identification.
- •The Tribunal considered the 'motivated intruder' test and the interplay between FOIA and the UK GDPR.
Legal Principles
Section 1(1) of FOIA provides a right to be informed whether a public authority holds requested information and to receive it if held, subject to other provisions.
FOIA
Section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA allows refusal to confirm or deny if doing so would contravene data protection principles.
FOIA
The Legitimate Interests Basis (Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR) allows processing personal data if necessary for legitimate interests, unless overridden by data subject rights.
UK GDPR
The 'motivated intruder' test considers whether a determined individual could indirectly identify data subjects from disclosed information.
Case law (Information Commissioner v Miller)
The Public Interest Test (section 2(1)(b) FOIA) weighs public interest in maintaining an exemption against public interest in disclosure.
FOIA
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that confirming or denying would disclose personal data due to Sheldon's prior knowledge, satisfying the 'motivated intruder' test. While acknowledging a legitimate interest in scrutinizing the Council, the Tribunal found disclosure unnecessary given alternative avenues for addressing compliance concerns. The Public Interest Test favoured protecting data subject privacy.