Anna Harrison v The Information Commissioner

Anna Harrison v The Information Commissioner

Disclosure of the donation agreements would not, and would not be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of King's College London because the donor's identity and donation amounts were already public, the agreements anticipated possible disclosure under FOIA, and there was no evidence that disclosure would deter donors. Section 43(2) was not engaged. Section 41(1) did not apply as the agreements were not obtained from another person. Section 40(2) only applied to personal data of third parties and certain redactions were permitted.

Parties
Appellant: Anna Harrison; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Confidentiality, Commercial Interests, Public Authority Duties
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Personal Data Confidentiality Commercial Interests Public Authority Duties

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Harrison

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether King's College London could rely on section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold donation agreements
  2. 2 Whether section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) or section 40(2) (personal information) applied to the agreements
  3. 3 Whether the College breached statutory time limits under FOIA

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure of the donation agreements would not, and would not be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of King's College London because the donor's identity and donation amounts were already public, the agreements anticipated possible disclosure under FOIA, and there was no evidence that disclosure would deter donors. Section 43(2) was not engaged. Section 41(1) did not apply as the agreements were not obtained from another person. Section 40(2) only applied to personal data of third parties and certain redactions were permitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • King's College London must disclose the Gift Agreement (2011) and Donation Agreement (2020) with Dr Lau Ming-wai, including the Confirmation Paper, subject to redaction of personal data under section 40(2) except for Dr Lau's name and donation details, within 35 days or as otherwise directed.
  • The College breached section 10(1) by failing to disclose information within 20 working days.