Key Facts
- •Giovanni Marcheselli complained to the GMC about two doctors.
- •The GMC refused to investigate.
- •Marcheselli requested information under FOIA about one doctor (unnamed in the decision).
- •The requested information included the doctor's Designated Body, Responsible Officer, and revalidation dates.
- •The GMC withheld the information under section 40(2) FOIA, claiming it was personal data.
- •Marcheselli appealed to the Information Commissioner, then to the First-tier Tribunal.
Legal Principles
FOIA's duty to disclose information unless exempt.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), section 1
Exemption for personal data if disclosure would contravene data protection principles.
FOIA, section 40(2)
Definition of personal data.
Data Protection Act 2018, section 3(2)
Data protection principle of lawful, fair, and transparent processing.
GDPR, Article 5(1)(a)
Lawful processing under GDPR, Article 6(1)(f): legitimate interests test, necessity test, and balancing test.
GDPR, Article 6(1)(f)
Reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 8 ECHR.
Goldsmith International Business School v Information Commissioner and Home Office [2014] UKUT 563 (AAC)
Weight given to data controller's assessment of balancing interests.
DB v GMC [2018] EWCA Civ 14978
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The requested information is personal data; disclosure would contravene data protection principles because it's not necessary to further any legitimate interest and would be unfair to the doctor.