David Graves v The Information Commissioner

David Graves v The Information Commissioner

The 700 pages of staff testimonies were provided in confidence, with explicit assurances given to interviewees. Disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence under section 41 FOIA. The public interest in maintaining confidentiality, particularly in the context of whistleblowing investigations, is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure, especially as the Holden Report and anonymised extracts have already been published. The authority would not have a public interest defence to a breach of confidence claim.

Parties
Appellant: David Graves; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (information Rights) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Confidentiality, Public Interest, Whistleblowing, Data Protection
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Confidentiality Public Interest Whistleblowing Data Protection

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Graves

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (information Rights) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 700 pages of staff testimonies relating to the Holden Report are exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as information provided in confidence
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining confidentiality

Ratio Decidendi

The 700 pages of staff testimonies were provided in confidence, with explicit assurances given to interviewees. Disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence under section 41 FOIA. The public interest in maintaining confidentiality, particularly in the context of whistleblowing investigations, is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure, especially as the Holden Report and anonymised extracts have already been published. The authority would not have a public interest defence to a breach of confidence claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed