David Bennet v The Information Commissioner & Anor

David Bennet v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Council was wrong to rely on regulation 13 EIR for question 1, as the information requested did not fall within the scope of personal data exemption. The Decision Notice was not in accordance with the law on this point. For questions 2-5, the Commissioner correctly applied the balance of probabilities test and found the information was not held; the Decision Notice was in accordance with the law and the appeal on these points is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: David Bennett; 1st Respondent: The Information Commissioner; 2nd Respondent: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Information Rights (environmental Information Regulations) / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Environmental Information Regulations, Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Public Authority Duties, Balance of Probabilities
Information Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Information Regulations Freedom of Information Personal Data Public Authority Duties Balance of Probabilities

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Bennett

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

1st Respondent

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Information Rights (environmental Information Regulations) / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 EIR to withhold information requested under question 1
  2. 2 Whether the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(a) EIR in stating information requested in questions 2-5 was not held
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner’s Decision Notice was in accordance with the law

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was wrong to rely on regulation 13 EIR for question 1, as the information requested did not fall within the scope of personal data exemption. The Decision Notice was not in accordance with the law on this point. For questions 2-5, the Commissioner correctly applied the balance of probabilities test and found the information was not held; the Decision Notice was in accordance with the law and the appeal on these points is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • The application to adjourn the hearing is refused.
  • The appeal relating to questions 2-5 of the request is dismissed.