S Hussain v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 950 (GRC)
Shajad Hussain v The Information Commissioner
4 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 451 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone wanted names and work history of former social workers. The government said no, protecting their privacy. A court agreed, saying it wasn't necessary to reveal that info, even if it's about public workers. The request to record the court hearing was also rejected.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Hussain appealed the Information Commissioner's decision to uphold City of Bradford Council's refusal to disclose information about former social workers.
- •The requested information included names, registration numbers, and last employment dates.
- •The Council relied on FOIA section 40(2) (third-party personal information).
- •Mr. Hussain argued the information was already partially public and that social workers forfeit some privacy in public roles.
- •The Tribunal considered whether the information was 'personal data' and whether disclosure would breach data protection principles.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) - general right of access subject to exemptions.
FOIA
FOIA section 40(2) exempts disclosure of third-party personal data if it contravenes data protection principles.
FOIA s.40(2)
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) defines personal data as information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual.
DPA s.3(2)
UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a): personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently.
UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a)
UK GDPR Article 6(1)(f): processing is lawful if necessary for legitimate interests, unless overridden by data subject's rights.
UK GDPR Article 6(1)(f)
Three-part test for disclosure under Article 6(1)(f): legitimate interest, necessity, and balancing test.
Case Law interpretation of Article 6(1)(f)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner correctly applied the law. Disclosure of the requested information was deemed unnecessary and disproportionate to the legitimate interest claimed by Mr. Hussain, even considering the principle of open justice. The data subjects' rights and freedoms outweighed Mr. Hussain's interest.
Mr. Hussain's request to audio-record the hearing was refused.
The Tribunal Judge exercised discretion, finding no obstacle to Mr. Hussain's participation without recording and considering the risk of misuse.
Mr. Hussain's request for a copy of the Tribunal's audio recording was refused.
No exceptional circumstances justifying disclosure were presented; the recording’s potential for misuse was considered; the recording wouldn't aid a legal appeal.