Bennett v Information Commissioner & Anor [2023] UKFTT 1031 (GRC) (21 December 2023)

Bennett v Information Commissioner & Anor [2023] UKFTT 1031 (GRC) (21 December 2023)

The Council was wrong to rely on regulation 13 EIR for question 1, as the requested information did not fall within the scope of personal data exemption. The Decision Notice was not in accordance with the law in this respect. For questions 2-5, the Commissioner correctly applied the balance of probabilities test and reasonably concluded that the Council did not hold the requested information. The Decision Notice was lawful in this regard.

Citation
[2023] UKFTT 1031 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: David Bennett; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
21 December 2023
Procedural Posture
First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Environmental Information Regulations 2004, Freedom of Information Act 2000, Personal Data, Public Authority Duties, Disclosure Exceptions
Information Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Freedom of Information Act 2000 Personal Data Public Authority Duties Disclosure Exceptions

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Bennett

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 EIR (personal data) to withhold information requested under EIR
  2. 2 Whether the Council held the information requested in questions 2-5 of the Request
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner’s Decision Notice was in accordance with the law

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was wrong to rely on regulation 13 EIR for question 1, as the requested information did not fall within the scope of personal data exemption. The Decision Notice was not in accordance with the law in this respect. For questions 2-5, the Commissioner correctly applied the balance of probabilities test and reasonably concluded that the Council did not hold the requested information. The Decision Notice was lawful in this regard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Application to adjourn the hearing is refused.
  • Appeal relating to questions 2-5 of the Request is dismissed.