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.