Dimitri Shvorob v Information Commissioner

Dimitri Shvorob v Information Commissioner

The Council was entitled to withhold the majority of the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA because the personal data contained in the nomination statements, including information about children and unsuccessful nominees, is protected by data protection principles and the legitimate interests in disclosure are not strong enough to override the data subjects' rights. However, some redacted nomination statements relating to organisations, where personal data can be sufficiently protected, must be disclosed to the Appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Dimitri Shvorob; Respondent: Information Commissioner; Third Party: London Borough of Bexley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment/decision After Paper Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Section 40 FOIA, UK GDPR, Data Protection Act 2018, Public Interest Test
Information Law Data Protection Freedom of Information Personal Data Section 40 FOIA UK GDPR Data Protection Act 2018 Public Interest Test

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dimitri Shvorob

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

London Borough of Bexley

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment/decision After Paper Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA to withhold all requested information about rejected nomination statements for Bexley Civic Recognition Awards 2023.
  2. 2 Whether any part of the requested information can be disclosed without breaching data protection principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was entitled to withhold the majority of the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA because the personal data contained in the nomination statements, including information about children and unsuccessful nominees, is protected by data protection principles and the legitimate interests in disclosure are not strong enough to override the data subjects' rights. However, some redacted nomination statements relating to organisations, where personal data can be sufficiently protected, must be disclosed to the Appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Within 28 days, the Council must disclose to the Appellant the bundle of redacted nomination statements provided to the Tribunal on 24 September 2024, with the addition of missing pages for nominations #214, #238, #204, and #241 (redacted for personal data), removal of any successful nominations (including #239,...
  • The Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA to withhold the remainder of the requested information.