Andy Kimber v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Andy Kimber v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Confirmation or denial of the existence of the requested information would amount to public disclosure that a complaint had been made about an identified individual (person A), constituting processing of personal data. Such disclosure would be unlawful as the legitimate interest in disclosure is overridden by the data subject’s rights and freedoms, and would breach data protection principles. Therefore, the GMC was entitled to neither confirm nor deny holding the information under section 40(5B) FOIA.

Parties
Appellant: Andy Kimber; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information Act, Personal Data, Data Protection Principles, Disclosure Exemptions
Information Rights Data Protection Freedom of Information Act Personal Data Data Protection Principles Disclosure Exemptions

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andy Kimber

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The General Medical Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the GMC was entitled to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information under section 40(5B) FOIA
  2. 2 Whether confirmation or denial would result in disclosure of third party personal data
  3. 3 Whether such confirmation or denial would breach data protection principles

Ratio Decidendi

Confirmation or denial of the existence of the requested information would amount to public disclosure that a complaint had been made about an identified individual (person A), constituting processing of personal data. Such disclosure would be unlawful as the legitimate interest in disclosure is overridden by the data subject’s rights and freedoms, and would breach data protection principles. Therefore, the GMC was entitled to neither confirm nor deny holding the information under section 40(5B) FOIA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held pursuant to section 40(5B) FOIA is confirmed.