Frederick Lyndon Wangler v Information Commissioner

Frederick Lyndon Wangler v Information Commissioner

The withheld correspondence constitutes third party personal data. Disclosure is not necessary for the appellant's legitimate interest, as sufficient information is already public. Even if necessity were established, the balancing test favours protecting the data subjects' rights. The Information Commissioner's...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Frederick Lyndon Wangler; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Environmental Information, Personal Data Exemption, Legitimate Interest Test, Balancing Test Under GDPR
Information Rights Environmental Law Data Protection Disclosure of Environmental Information Personal Data Exemption Legitimate Interest Test Balancing Test Under GDPR

Source-derived case record

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

Frederick Lyndon Wangler

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether withheld correspondence constitutes third party personal data under EIR
  2. 2 Whether disclosure would contravene Article 5(1)(a) of GDPR
  3. 3 Whether legitimate interest, necessity, and balancing tests permit disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The withheld correspondence constitutes third party personal data. Disclosure is not necessary for the appellant's legitimate interest, as sufficient information is already public. Even if necessity were established, the balancing test favours protecting the data subjects' rights. The Information Commissioner's decision was not wrong in law; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No further steps required by the Council
  • Decision Notice upheld