Andrew Dunlop v Information Commissioner & Anor

Andrew Dunlop v Information Commissioner & Anor

Although legitimate interests exist and disclosure of name, address, and date of birth is reasonably necessary for verifying evidence, the privacy rights and reasonable expectations of individuals who submitted User Evidence Forms override those interests. The Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 13 EIR.

Parties
Appellant: Andrew Dunlop; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Kirklees Metropolitan Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Information Regulations, Personal Data, Disclosure, Definitive Map Modification Order, Freedom of Information, Human Rights

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Dunlop

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Kirklees Metropolitan Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Does the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 apply to the request?
  2. 2 Is the requested information personal data?
  3. 3 Was the processing necessary for compliance with a legal obligation under Article 6(1)(c) UK GDPR?

Ratio Decidendi

Although legitimate interests exist and disclosure of name, address, and date of birth is reasonably necessary for verifying evidence, the privacy rights and reasonable expectations of individuals who submitted User Evidence Forms override those interests. The Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 13 EIR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Council entitled to withhold requested information under regulation 13 EIR