Darbari Rachhpaul Singh Bedi v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 22 (GRC)
Peter Whyton v Information Commissioner & Anor
11 August 2023
[2022] UKFTT 518 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone wanted names and addresses of people who wrote letters complaining about him. The government said no because those people had a right to privacy, and there was another way to complain. The court agreed.
Key Facts
- •Peter Whyton appealed the Information Commissioner's decision upholding Sodbury Town Council's refusal to disclose names and addresses of individuals who submitted correspondence regarding a stopping-up order.
- •Whyton's request was initially made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), but the Commissioner determined the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) applied.
- •The correspondence contained personal data, and the data subjects objected to disclosure.
- •Whyton alleged wrongdoing and collusion by a councillor, seeking disclosure to investigate.
- •The Tribunal considered whether disclosure was necessary under the legitimate interests test of the EIR and GDPR.
Legal Principles
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) apply to information about the state of the environment, factors affecting it, and measures relating to it.
EIR 2004, Regulation 2(1)
Public authorities must make environmental information available on request (subject to exceptions).
EIR 2004, Regulation 5(1)
Personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject should not be disclosed unless in accordance with EIR regulation 13.
EIR 2004, Regulation 12(3) and 13
Disclosure of personal data must not contravene data protection principles (GDPR).
EIR 2004, Regulation 13(2A); GDPR, Article 5(1); DPA 2018, s.34(1)
Legitimate interests test for processing personal data involves considering: (i) legitimate interest pursued; (ii) necessity of processing; (iii) whether interests are overridden by data subject's rights.
GDPR Article 6(1)(f); South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that disclosure of the data subjects' names and addresses was not reasonably necessary to achieve the appellant's legitimate interests. The data subjects' privacy rights outweighed the appellant's interest in uncovering potential wrongdoing, given the existence of a complaints procedure. The Tribunal also noted the reasonable expectation of privacy in a small community setting and the potential for deterring public participation.