Thomas John Brooks v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 964 (GRC)
Emyr Gwyn v The Information Commissioner
4 September 2023
[2023] UKFTT 723 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Mr. Gwyn wanted information about his neighbor's building work. The Council and then the Information Commissioner said no because it was private information about his neighbor. The court agreed, saying Mr. Gwyn could find out about the problem in other ways, without revealing private information about his neighbor.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Emyr Gwyn requested building control information from Cardiff Council relating to his neighbor's Dormer extension due to property damage.
- •The Council refused the request, citing the protection of the neighbor's personal data under EIR reg 13.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the Council's decision.
- •Mr. Gwyn appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
- •The appeal was decided without a hearing.
Legal Principles
Privacy rights hold priority over information rights where they intersect. A presumption in favour of disclosure is subordinated to the absolute prohibition on disclosing personal data unless permitted by EIR reg 13.
EIR, reg 5, 12, 13; Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner [2008] 1 WLR 1550 HL
'Necessary' means reasonably necessary, with no other reasonable means of achieving the aim. 'Necessity' is part of a proportionality test requiring minimum interference with privacy rights.
South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish IC [2013] UKSC 55; IC v Halpin [2020] UKUT 29 (AAC); R (Ali & another) v Minister for the Cabinet Office & another [2012] EWHC 1943 (Admin)
Disclosure under freedom of information legislation is to the whole world, without a duty of confidence.
Rodriguez-Noza v IC and Nursing & Midwifery Council [2015] UKUT 449 (AAC)
Fair and lawful processing under GDPR Articles 5 and 6 must be considered before the balancing proviso under Article 6.1(f).
Farrand v Information Commissioner [2014] UKUT 310 (AAC)
Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR definitions of personal data, processing, and data subject.
DPA 2018, s3; GDPR, Article 5, 6
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The requested information included the neighbor's personal data, and its processing would be neither fair nor lawful under GDPR Articles 5 and 6. Alternative avenues for Mr. Gwyn to pursue his concerns existed, making the disclosure unnecessary.