Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tribunal held that Ealing could withhold most redacted personal data in a planning application, but had to disclose the name of one owner because it was not personal data.
The Tribunal struck out Jonathan Allweis’s section 166 DPA 2018 appeal, holding there was no reasonable prospect of success because the complaint challenged the merits, not procedure.
The Tribunal held that the withheld information constitutes personal data and that disclosure would contravene data protection principles under UK GDPR. The legitimate interest asserted by the appellant was private and narrow, and the necessity test was not met. Disclosure of junior officials' personal data was not justified; the Information Commissioner correctly applied the s40(2) FOIA exemption.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant the outcome sought because the Information Commissioner has already provided an outcome to the complaint, and section 166 DPA 2018 is limited to procedural issues, not substantive review. There are no further appropriate procedural steps for the Commissioner to take.
Source excerpt
Kul & Ors v DWF Law LLP [2025] EWHC 1824 (KB) (22 July 2025)
High Court judgment on UK GDPR claims over a litigation spreadsheet. The court held DWF’s processing was lawful, necessary, fair and proportionate, and dismissed the claims.
The High Court dismissed data protection claims over a litigation spreadsheet, holding the defendant’s use of claimants’ names and medical data was necessary and proportionate for defending claims.
Ness v Miller [2025] EWHC 1784 (KB) (15 July 2025)
The High Court decided preliminary defamation issues in Christopher Ness's claim against Jennifer Miller, holding that the YouTube video did not refer to him and that Miller was not shown to have published the emails.
Disclosure or confirmation/denial of the requested information would not be the least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate aims and is not reasonably necessary; therefore, section 40(5B) FOIA applies and the Trust is not required to confirm or deny holding the information.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to consider the merits or substantive outcome of the Commissioner's response to a complaint; as the Commissioner provided an outcome to the Applicant's complaint, no procedural failure occurred, and the application must be struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found no risk of identifying any living person from disclosure of the withheld report numbers. The evidence showed that only the original reporter can access the status of their report, and others cannot use report numbers to identify individuals. The exemption under section 40(2) FOIA is not satisfied; the withheld information does not constitute personal data.
Source excerpt
Explore more
