Stephen John Gullick v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 985 (GRC)
Ronald Warren Foster v The Information Commissioner & Anor
29 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 427 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone claimed fraud and asked for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The government said the information was personal and exempt. After the government gave the person the information, the court said there was no reason to keep arguing about it because the problem was already solved.
Key Facts
- •Ronald Warren Foster appealed the Information Commissioner's decision regarding his FOIA request to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for an Argos collection report related to alleged fraudulent transactions.
- •The report contained information about goods purchased using Foster's Revolut account.
- •The FOS initially refused the request, citing FOIA and DPA exemptions.
- •After the appeal was lodged, the FOS obtained the report from Argos and provided it to Foster.
- •Foster argued that the report contained third-party data and that section 40(2) of FOIA, not section 40(1), should apply.
- •The Commissioner argued the information was solely Foster's personal data, and section 40(1) correctly applied.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA): Section 1(1) entitles a requester to information held by a public authority unless exempted under Part II.
FOIA
FOIA: Section 40(1) provides an absolute exemption for personal data of which the requester is the subject.
FOIA
FOIA: Section 40(2) provides a qualified exemption for personal data, subject to a public interest test.
FOIA
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA): Section 3(2) defines personal data as information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual.
DPA
DPA: Schedule 2, paragraph 6(1) addresses legitimate interests in obtaining personal data.
DPA
R (Salem) v SSHD: Academic appeals should not be heard unless there's a good reason in the public interest.
R (Salem) v SSHD [1999] UKHL 8
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The appeal became academic after the requested information was provided to the appellant. No wider public interest was demonstrated, and the appeal turned on a factual question already resolved by the provision of the information.
The Tribunal noted that the information provided was not in an easily legible format.
In the interests of justice, the Tribunal urged the FOS to provide a legible copy to the appellant.