Dillan Patrick Egan v The Information Commissioner

Dillan Patrick Egan v The Information Commissioner

Section 31 FOIA was not engaged as there was no real and significant risk of prejudice to the Health Board's functions. The Health Board was entitled to withhold the Appellant's personal data under section 40(1), and names of individuals under section 40(2), but not job titles or expressions of opinion. Section 41 was not engaged as the public interest in disclosure outweighed the duty of confidence. Section 38(1)(a) was not engaged as the threshold of endangerment was not met. The Health Board must disclose the remainder of the requested information, with only names withheld.

Parties
Appellant: Dillan Patrick Egan; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Information Rights / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Personal Data, Exemptions Under FOIA, Public Interest Test, Confidential Information, Health and Safety Exemption
Information Law Data Protection Administrative Law Freedom of Information Act 2000 Personal Data Exemptions Under FOIA Public Interest Test Confidential Information +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dillan Patrick Egan

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Information Rights / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 31 FOIA (law enforcement) exemption applies to the withheld information
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal can consider other exemptions relied on by the Health Board
  3. 3 Whether sections 40(1), 40(2), 41, and 38(1)(a) FOIA apply to the withheld information

Ratio Decidendi

Section 31 FOIA was not engaged as there was no real and significant risk of prejudice to the Health Board's functions. The Health Board was entitled to withhold the Appellant's personal data under section 40(1), and names of individuals under section 40(2), but not job titles or expressions of opinion. Section 41 was not engaged as the public interest in disclosure outweighed the duty of confidence. Section 38(1)(a) was not engaged as the threshold of endangerment was not met. The Health Board must disclose the remainder of the requested information, with only names withheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Information Commissioner's decision notice is set aside as not in accordance with the law.
  • The Health Board is entitled to withhold the Appellant's personal data under section 40(1) FOIA, taking into account the Appellant's wish that only his name be withheld.