David Anthony Hinkel v The Information Commissioner & Anor

David Anthony Hinkel v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the information sought by Mr Hinkel constituted personal data and confidential information, and that disclosure would contravene data protection principles and breach confidence. The exemptions under FOIA sections 40 and 41 applied absolutely, and Mr Hinkel failed to establish a legitimate interest or necessity for disclosure. The appeals were dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: David Anthony Hinkel; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: H M Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information Act, Personal Data Exemption, Confidential Information Exemption, Financial Sanctions, Sanctions Licensing, Public Interest Test
Information Rights Data Protection Administrative Law Freedom of Information Act Personal Data Exemption Confidential Information Exemption Financial Sanctions Sanctions Licensing +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Anthony Hinkel

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

H M Treasury

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMT and OFSI are required to confirm or deny holding information about sanctions licences under FOIA requests
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of licence application information would contravene data protection principles
  3. 3 Whether information sought is exempt under FOIA sections 40 and 41

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the information sought by Mr Hinkel constituted personal data and confidential information, and that disclosure would contravene data protection principles and breach confidence. The exemptions under FOIA sections 40 and 41 applied absolutely, and Mr Hinkel failed to establish a legitimate interest or necessity for disclosure. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals FT/EA/2023/0306 and FT/EA/2024/0298 are dismissed.
  • No order for disclosure; 'neither confirm nor deny' response upheld.