Key Facts
- •Ms Farragher requested information from CCEA about staffing and operational matters, including correspondence and meeting minutes.
- •CCEA withheld information under sections 36, 40(1), 40(2), and 41 of the FOIA.
- •The Information Commissioner (IC) upheld CCEA's application of section 36 and found that CCEA correctly withheld personal data under section 40 but breached section 10 by delayed response.
- •Ms Farragher appealed the IC's decision.
- •The Tribunal considered the appeal based on written submissions, without an oral hearing.
- •The Tribunal had access to a closed bundle containing unredacted information withheld from Ms Farragher.
- •Ms Farragher was the Interim Chief Executive of CCEA during part of the relevant period and the QP for the purposes of Section 36 FOIA.
- •CCEA provided some information but withheld some under various FOIA exemptions.
Legal Principles
General right of access to information held by public authorities.
FOIA section 1(1)
Exemptions for information that would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
FOIA section 36
Absolute exemption for personal data of the applicant.
FOIA section 40(1)
Absolute exemption for third-party personal data where disclosure would breach data protection principles.
FOIA section 40(2)
Exemption for information provided in confidence.
FOIA section 41
'Reasonable' in section 36(2) FOIA means substantively reasonable, not procedurally reasonable.
Commissioner v Malnick and ACBA (GIA/447/2017)
Tribunal's power to review findings of fact and errors of law in appeals against the Commissioner's decisions.
FOIA sections 57-58
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found no error of law in the Commissioner's decision and that the Commissioner's exercise of discretion in balancing the public interest was appropriate. The absolute exemptions under sections 40(1) and 40(2) were correctly applied, and the public interest favored maintaining the exemptions under section 36.