Gabriel Kanter-Webber v Information Commissioner & Anor

Gabriel Kanter-Webber v Information Commissioner & Anor

The tribunal found that the exemptions under sections 31, 36, 38, and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 were properly engaged, supported by reasonable opinions and evidence, and that the public interest in transparency was sufficiently met by the published decision. Disclosure of the recording would prejudice the regulatory process, deter witnesses, and harm vulnerable individuals, outweighing any further public interest in disclosure.

Parties
Appellant: Gabriel Kanter-Webber; Respondent: Information Commissioner; Respondent: Department for Education
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Public Interest, Regulatory Hearings, Privacy, Vulnerable Witnesses
Information Rights Administrative Law Freedom of Information Personal Data Public Interest Regulatory Hearings Privacy Vulnerable Witnesses

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriel Kanter-Webber

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Department for Education

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of the requested hearing recording is exempt under sections 31, 36, 38, and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether prior public hearing negates FOIA exemptions
  3. 3 Whether public interest in transparency outweighs privacy and regulatory concerns

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the exemptions under sections 31, 36, 38, and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 were properly engaged, supported by reasonable opinions and evidence, and that the public interest in transparency was sufficiently met by the published decision. Disclosure of the recording would prejudice the regulatory process, deter witnesses, and harm vulnerable individuals, outweighing any further public interest in disclosure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No disclosure of the requested recording or transcript
  • No further action required by respondents