Ofqual v Information Commissioner
[2023] UKUT 253 (AAC)
Shibu Gangadharan v The Information Commissioner
9 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 245 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone asked a school for GCSE results data, broken down by ethnicity. A lower court didn't fully answer the request. A higher court said the lower court must reconsider the part it missed, but otherwise the school's refusal to give out the data was fine.
Key Facts
- •Shibu Gangadharan requested information from Oxford Spires Academy regarding GCSE mock results, categorized by ethnicity.
- •The request was interpreted as four separate requests.
- •The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, failing to address Request 4 (percentage data on ethnicity and grades).
- •The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, remitting the case for rehearing of Request 4.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA 2000), section 40(2) exemption for personal data.
FOIA 2000
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and UK GDPR, Article 6(1)(f) regarding legitimate interests.
DPA, UK GDPR
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) regarding setting aside and remitting decisions.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Standard of review for Upper Tribunal scrutiny of First-tier Tribunal decisions: generous approach to reasons, considering implicit aspects.
R (Jones) v First-tier Tribunal, Information Commissioner v Experian Limited
Balancing of interests under section 7(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DB v General Medical Council) and its applicability to FOIA and UK GDPR.
DB v General Medical Council
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The First-tier Tribunal failed to address Request 4 of the information request. The Tribunal's approach to Article 6(1)(f) and legitimate interest was not found to be erroneous.
Case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
The case is to be reheard specifically concerning Request 4, which was overlooked in the initial decision.