Aled Evans v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Aled Evans v The Information Commissioner & Anor

UHB was not entitled to rely on s31(1)(g) read with s31(2)(b) FOIA because its investigative function under the 2011 Regulations is not for the precise purpose of ascertaining improper conduct. However, UHB was entitled to rely on s31(1)(g) read with s31(2)(j) FOIA, s36(2)(b)(ii), s36(2)(c), s40(2), and s41(1) FOIA to refuse disclosure, as disclosure would likely prejudice the protection of health and safety, inhibit free and frank exchanges, breach personal data rights, and breach confidentiality. The public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Parties
Appellant: Aled Evans; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Hywel Dda University Health Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; substituted decision notice issued.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Confidentiality, Public Interest Test, Health Service Complaints
Information Law Administrative Law Health Law Freedom of Information Personal Data Confidentiality Public Interest Test Health Service Complaints

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aled Evans

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Hywel Dda University Health Board

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UHB was entitled to refuse disclosure of requested information under s31(1)(g) read with s31(2)(b) and/or s31(2)(j) FOIA, s36(2)(b)(ii), s36(2)(c), s40(2), and s41(1) FOIA;
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure;
  3. 3 Whether the withheld information constitutes personal data or confidential information exempt from disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi

UHB was not entitled to rely on s31(1)(g) read with s31(2)(b) FOIA because its investigative function under the 2011 Regulations is not for the precise purpose of ascertaining improper conduct. However, UHB was entitled to rely on s31(1)(g) read with s31(2)(j) FOIA, s36(2)(b)(ii), s36(2)(c), s40(2), and s41(1) FOIA to refuse disclosure, as disclosure would likely prejudice the protection of health and safety, inhibit free and frank exchanges, breach personal data rights, and breach confidentiality. The public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; substituted decision notice issued.

Orders

  • Hywel Dda University Health Board is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in reliance on s31(1)(g) read with s31(2)(j), s36(2)(b)(ii), s36(2)(c), s40(2), and s41(1) FOIA.
  • The Second Respondent is not required to take any further steps.