Peter Stead v The Information Commissioner

Peter Stead v The Information Commissioner

The University was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA to withhold the name of the Chief Operating Officer of CIISA, as this information was already public and there was no legitimate expectation of privacy. For all other withheld personal data, the University was entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA, as disclosure was not reasonably necessary for legitimate interests and would be overridden by the data subjects' rights. The University was entitled to rely on section 40(1) FOIA to withhold the appellant's own personal data.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Stead; Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Third Party: Governing Body of the University of York
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Exemptions Under FOIA, Legitimate Interest, Transparency, Subject Access Request
Information Law Data Protection Freedom of Information Personal Data Exemptions Under FOIA Legitimate Interest Transparency Subject Access Request

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Stead

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Governing Body of the University of York

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University was entitled to rely on section 40(1) and 40(2) FOIA to withhold information
  2. 2 Whether the withheld information constituted personal data of the appellant or third parties
  3. 3 Whether disclosure of third party personal data was necessary for legitimate interests and if those interests were overridden by data subjects' rights

Ratio Decidendi

The University was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA to withhold the name of the Chief Operating Officer of CIISA, as this information was already public and there was no legitimate expectation of privacy. For all other withheld personal data, the University was entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA, as disclosure was not reasonably necessary for legitimate interests and would be overridden by the data subjects' rights. The University was entitled to rely on section 40(1) FOIA to withhold the appellant's own personal data.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The University must disclose a further copy of the information to the appellant, removing the redaction of the name of the Chief Operating Officer of CIISA within 35 calendar days.
  • All other withheld personal data may remain redacted.