Peter Whyton v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2022] UKFTT 518 (GRC)
Darbari Rachhpaul Singh Bedi v Information Commissioner
10 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 22 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone wanted names and addresses of council workers to sue the council. The council refused, saying it's private information. A judge agreed with the council, saying there were easier ways to get the information for the lawsuit and that the workers' privacy was more important.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision upholding London Borough of Ealing's refusal to disclose personal data under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).
- •Appellant requested information relating to a Penalty Charge Notice, including names and addresses of Council employees.
- •Council withheld information under regulation 13(1) EIR, citing data protection concerns.
- •Information Commissioner agreed with the Council's application of regulation 13(1).
- •Appellant argued legitimate interest in obtaining information for legal proceedings.
- •Tribunal considered whether disclosure was reasonably necessary and whether Appellant's interests outweighed data subjects' rights.
Legal Principles
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR): Public authorities must make environmental information available on request, except where exemptions apply.
EIR
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently. Disclosure must meet conditions for lawful processing, including legitimate interests.
DPA, GDPR
Test for legitimate interests: (i) Is there a legitimate interest? (ii) Is processing necessary? (iii) Are data subject's rights overridden?
South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55
"Necessity" in the context of data disclosure is a matter of "reasonable necessity", involving consideration of alternative measures and proportionality.
Goldsmith International Business School v Information Commissioner and the Home Office [2014] UKUT 563 (AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that disclosure of the requested names and addresses was not reasonably necessary for the Appellant's legitimate interests. Alternative methods, such as court applications, existed. Furthermore, the data subjects' rights and freedoms outweighed the Appellant's interests; disclosure would contravene data protection principles. The Council did not hold the information requested in question 13.