Julian Todd v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 782 (GRC)
Peter Cleasby v The Information Commissioner
30 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 89 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked for the names of people in two university community groups. The university said no, citing privacy. A judge decided the public's right to know who advises the university outweighed privacy concerns, so the names must be released.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Cleasby requested information about the University of Exeter's Community Panel and Resident Liaison Group, including members' names and affiliations.
- •The University withheld this information under sections 40(2) (personal data) and 41 (confidential information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the University's reliance on section 40(2) for most information but ordered disclosure of the Community Panel Chair's name.
- •Mr. Cleasby appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
Legal Principles
Section 40(2) FOIA: Personal data is exempt information if its disclosure would contravene data protection principles.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR: Processing of personal data is lawful if necessary for the legitimate interests of the controller, unless overridden by the data subject's interests or fundamental rights.
UK General Data Protection Regulation
Three-part test for legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f): (1) Legitimate interest pursued; (2) Processing necessary; (3) Interests not overridden by data subject's rights.
Case law on Article 6(1)(f)'s predecessor
Section 41 FOIA: Information obtained in confidence is exempt if disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41 three-part test for breach of confidence: (1) Information has quality of confidence; (2) Imparted in circumstances importing obligation of confidence; (3) Unauthorised use to detriment.
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41
Public interest balancing test applies to Section 41, but Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption.
Case Law
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The FTT found a legitimate public interest in transparency regarding the Community Panel and Resident Liaison Group's membership, outweighing the data subjects' privacy concerns. The FTT determined that disclosure was reasonably necessary and within the reasonable expectations of the group members. There was no actionable breach of confidence.
Similar Cases
Nina Freedman v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 503 (GRC)
Cambridgeshire County Council v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 269 (GRC)
Alan David Sokal v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 795 (GRC)
Thomas Turner v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 1063 (GRC)