UA v The Information Commissioner

UA v The Information Commissioner

Section 40(2) FOIA was engaged as the name of the caller was personal data and disclosure was not necessary for the legitimate interests pursued by the appellant; the exemption was absolute and the public interest test did not apply. Section 31(3) FOIA was engaged for the second part of the request as confirmation or denial would likely prejudice law enforcement functions by deterring public reporting; the public interest in maintaining the exclusion outweighed the interest in disclosure. The Decision Notice was in accordance with the law.

Parties
Appellant: UA (anonymous); Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (foia) / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Determination on the Papers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Public Interest Test, Exemptions Under FOIA, Legitimate Interests Basis, Neither Confirm Nor Deny (ncnd), Section 40(2) FOIA, Section 31(3) FOIA
Information Law Data Protection Administrative Law Freedom of Information Personal Data Public Interest Test Exemptions Under FOIA Legitimate Interests Basis +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UA (anonymous)

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (foia) / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority could rely on section 40(2) FOIA to withhold the name of the caller as personal data
  2. 2 Whether the Authority could rely on section 31(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding information about whether the caller was a family member
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in maintaining the exemptions

Ratio Decidendi

Section 40(2) FOIA was engaged as the name of the caller was personal data and disclosure was not necessary for the legitimate interests pursued by the appellant; the exemption was absolute and the public interest test did not apply. Section 31(3) FOIA was engaged for the second part of the request as confirmation or denial would likely prejudice law enforcement functions by deterring public reporting; the public interest in maintaining the exclusion outweighed the interest in disclosure. The Decision Notice was in accordance with the law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed