Faisal A Qureshi v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 16 (GRC)
Faisal A Qureshi v The Information Commissioner
9 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 17 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone wanted the DVLA to release someone's driving licence application. The DVLA and the Information Commissioner said no, because it's private information. The court agreed, saying releasing it would break confidentiality, even if there were suspicions of wrongdoing.
Key Facts
- •Faisal Qureshi (Appellant) appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner (Respondent) upholding the DVLA's refusal to disclose Elaine Antoinette Parent's driving licence application under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The DVLA initially refused under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) and then section 41(2) (information provided in confidence), neither confirming nor denying the information's existence.
- •The Commissioner found that section 41(1) (information obtained from another person whose disclosure would breach confidence) applied.
- •The Appellant sought information potentially relating to alleged fraudulent activity by Parent, who used the alias Sylvia Hodgkinson.
- •The information requested was partially already in the Appellant's possession from US authorities.
Legal Principles
Section 41(1) FOIA: Information is exempt if obtained from another person and disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Actionable Breach of Confidence: Requires information to have the necessary quality of confidentiality, be communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and the public interest in disclosure not outweigh the interest in maintaining confidence.
Common Law
Public Interest Defence: The public interest in disclosure must be exceptional to outweigh the common law duty of confidence.
Common Law
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's reasoning that section 41(1) FOIA applied. The information held by the DVLA had the necessary quality of confidence, was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the interest in maintaining confidence. The Tribunal found that investigating potential fraud was not the DVLA's role and that the potential for deterrence was not sufficiently strong to override the exemption.