Edem v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Edem v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The names of the three junior employees were personal data because the individuals could be identified from their names in conjunction with their roles and employment context. Disclosure would contravene the first data protection principle as no legitimate interest was established to outweigh the employees' rights. The First-Tier Tribunal erred in applying the Durant 'biographical significance' and 'focus' tests, which were not relevant to this case.

Parties
Appellant: Efifiom Edem; 1st Respondent: The Information Commissioner; 2nd Respondent: The Financial Services Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Data, Disclosure of Employee Names, Data Protection Act 1998, Freedom of Information Act 2000
Data Protection Freedom of Information Personal Data Disclosure of Employee Names Data Protection Act 1998 Freedom of Information Act 2000

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Efifiom Edem

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

1st Respondent

The Financial Services Authority

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the names of three junior Financial Services Authority employees constitute personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 and are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Ratio Decidendi

The names of the three junior employees were personal data because the individuals could be identified from their names in conjunction with their roles and employment context. Disclosure would contravene the first data protection principle as no legitimate interest was established to outweigh the employees' rights. The First-Tier Tribunal erred in applying the Durant 'biographical significance' and 'focus' tests, which were not relevant to this case.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of the Upper Tribunal is upheld; the names of the three employees are not to be disclosed.