Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 25 May 2017

The complainant asked the public authority to disclose a record of a conversation that took place between former President of the United States of America, George Bush and former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on 16 April 2004. The public authority withheld the requested information in reliance on the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and 27(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) FOIA.
FOI 27: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50660657

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593657

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 10 Jul 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information it held concerning the transfer of the Stone of Scone to Scotland in 1996. The Cabinet Office responded to the request – outside of the 20 working days required by FOIA – and withheld all of the information falling within the scope. Some 18 months after the request, and during the Commissioner’s investigation of this complaint, the Cabinet Office disclosed the majority of the requested information. In withholding the remainder of the information the Cabinet Office sought to rely on the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) (international relations), 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign), 40(2) (personal data), and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The complainant does not dispute the application of these exemptions but is dissatisfied with the Cabinet Office’s delays in handling his request. The Commissioner has concluded that such delays resulted in the Cabinet Office breaching the procedural requirements of FOIA contained at sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50700072

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621302

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 18 Feb 2019

The complainant requested information relating to Cabinet meetings and a Cabinet committee on devolution in 1997. The Cabinet Office refused the request in reliance on the exemptions at section 35(1)(a) and section 35(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions are engaged in respect of the requested information. However the Commissioner is not satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions cited outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Therefore the Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the information to the complainant.
FOI 35: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50745325

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.634955

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 20 Aug 2018

The complainant has requested information on any rules and/or guidance in the honours system regarding the conferment of honours. The public authority disclosed some of the information held within the scope of the request and withheld the remainder relying on the exemptions at sections 37(1)(b) and 31(1)(g) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on sections 37(1)(b) and 31(1)(g).
FOI 31: Complaint upheld FOI 37: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50731157

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.628259

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 15 Jun 2018

The complainant has requested details of the amounts that the Cabinet Office has spent on consultancy services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on Section 21 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
FOI 21: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50727899

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621211

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 7 Sep 2018

The complainant requested information about the performance of MyCSP. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request outlined in this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50768737

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.628372

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 24 Sep 2018

The complainant has requested information in relation to the Ministerial Code. The Cabinet Office has refused the request relying on section 12 FOIA – costs of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50736363

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.628371

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 18 Oct 2018

The complainant requested information about a cancelled procurement process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time period and has therefore breached Section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50784782

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.628492

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 13 Jul 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of any correspondence between The Prince of Wales and the Prime Minster dating from 2002 about hunting. The Cabinet Office has confirmed that it holds some environmental information falling within the scope of the request but has sought to withhold this on the basis of regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that this information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 13(1). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 13: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0669057

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593823

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 4 May 2017

The complainant has requested information about Nick Clegg’s entitlement to the Public Duties Cost Allowance (‘PDCA’) from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing section 21 (information accessible by other means) and section 35 (formulation/development of government policy). The complainant disputed the Cabinet Office’s use of section 35. The Cabinet Office upheld its use of section 35 following internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35 as its basis for withholding the information to which it has been applied. However, the Cabinet Office contravened its obligations under section 10 (Time for compliance) when it failed to provide a response within a reasonable time having extended the time for compliance in order to consider the balance of public interest test in respect of section 35. No steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 35: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50645838

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593656

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 26 Jun 2017

The complainant has requested Management Information System Online (‘MISO’) information from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing section 43 (commercial interests exemption) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it revised its position and made a disclosure under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 43 as its basis for withholding the information which remains withheld within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50639250

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593732

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 22 Jan 2018

The complainant submitted a request the Cabinet Office seeking a range of data about pension payments and payments made under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. The Cabinet Office responded by stating that it is does not hold any of the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that the Cabinet Office does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50693517

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.617336

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 20 Dec 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for access to papers contained in files CAB 185/11, 14 and 16. The Cabinet Office withheld this information on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption.
FOI 23: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50679062

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.602478

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 7 Jun 2018

The complainant has requested information regarding the socioeconomic and educational backgrounds of applicants to the Government’s Fast Track scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to redact part of the disclosed information under section 40(2) and is entitled to withhold some of the information under section 23 and 24 in the alternative. The Commissioner does find, however, that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) by not citing the exemption on which it was relying. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet office to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the Act.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 24: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50662308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621209

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 27 Jul 2018

The complainant requested information relating to the HSE’s voluntary exit scheme held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50755668

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621303

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 28 Sep 2018

The complainant asked the public authority to confirm whether there were any agreements to support any rebel group prior to the overthrow of the Charles Taylor led Liberian government and for a copy of any document setting out the terms of such support. Relying on sections 27(4), 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA, the public authority neither confirmed nor denied whether it held any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the provisions in sections 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA.
FOI 24: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50732530

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.628370

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 12 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information in certain PREM files and a CAB file which has not been transferred to the National Archive. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this and cited sections 23 (security services), 37 (correspondence with the Sovereign), 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence). It upheld this at internal review although during the Commissioner’s investigation, it withdrew reliance on section 41. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on sections 23, 37(1)(a) and 40(2) as a basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 37: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50646401

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621300

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 2 Jan 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information about honours offered to the actors Paul Scofield and Peter O’Toole but which they had refused. In relation to Paul Scofield the Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information but sought to withhold this on the basis of section 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. In relation to Peter O’Toole the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information relying on section 37(2) by virtue of section 37(1)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b) to withhold the information it acknowledges holding about Paul Scofield. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Cabinet Office can rely on section 37(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information about Peter O’Toole.
FOI 37: Not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50686807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.617333

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 8 Jun 2018

The complainant has requested a copy of assessments that the Cabinet Office has created of UK journalists. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50716239

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621210

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 29 Jun 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of correspondence and communications between HRH Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, and the Prime Minister, in relation to public roles for the Duke of York’s daughters. The public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding information within the scope of the complainant’s request in reliance on sections 37(2) and 40(5)(b)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 37(2).
FOI 37(2): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50674879

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.593735

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 7 Dec 2017

The complainant has requested information on the attendance of members at specific Honours, Decorations and Medals committee meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on the exemptions at FOIA sections 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) and 37(1)(b) (Communications with Her Majesty) to refuse the request. In order to ensure compliance with the legislation the Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with the requested information.
FOI 35: Upheld FOI 37: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50677400

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.602477

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 27 Sep 2018

The complainant requested details of who recommended five individuals for honours. The Cabinet Office said that it only held information relating to one individual, and refused to disclose that information under section 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of an honour or dignity). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold information in respect of four of the five individuals named. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b) with regard to the withheld information. She does not require any further steps to be taken.
FOI 37: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50731743

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.628369

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 21 Jan 2019

The complainant requested information relating to specific redundancy scheme compensation cases that had been submitted to the Cabinet Office for consultation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office (‘the public authority’) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50792511

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.634834

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 13 Jun 2018

The complainant requested copies of correspondence to and from a specific employee of the Cabinet Office which mentions the British Indian Ocean Territory and/or the Chagos Archipelago. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50748473

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.621212

Shropshire Council (Local Government): ICO 12 Jan 2021

The complainant requested planning related information in relation to a proposed development scheme. Shropshire Council (the ‘Council’) initially withheld all the information in scope under Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR but, following an internal review, it disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant. Additionally, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed a further three documents to the complainant. It maintained that Regulation 12(4)(d) applied to the remaining information in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to consider this request under the EIR. She also finds that it has correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to the remaining withheld information. She concludes that the weight of the public interest lies in maintaining the Council’s application of this exception. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit. However, as this request was correctly considered under the EIR which allows a public authority 40 working days to complete an internal review, the Commissioner finds that the Council complied with the requirements of Regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
EIR 11(4): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-72438

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.658015

Various 3rd Wave Claimants v MGN Ltd: ChD 2 Aug 2019

Combined summary judgment and strikeout application made by the defendant in this managed litigation in which large numbers of individuals sue the defendant for invasions of their privacy by unlawful information gathering. The prime techniques of unlawful information gathering alleged against the defendant are voicemail interception (‘phone hacking’) and instructing private investigators to obtain information such as phone records, credit card details, car registration details and other private information.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2122 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Media, Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.640623

Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd: CA 16 Apr 2019

The claimant’s eviction had been filmed and broadcast by the defendants. They succeeded in an award of pounds 10,000 damages for breach of their rights of privacy. The parties cross appealed against the sum awarded and the finding respectively.
Held: Both appeals failed.
Where there is a rational view by which publication can be justified in the public interest, a court must give full weight to editorial knowledge and discretion, and be slow to interfere

Judges:

Irwin LJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 677

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAli and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd ChD 22-Feb-2018
The claimants said that a filming of their eviction from property was an invasion of their privacy.
Held: The Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information included in the Programme about which they . .
See AlsoAli and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd ChD 19-Apr-2018
Decision as to costs after findings of misuse of private information . .

Cited by:

CitedZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
CitedHRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.635952

Shaw Education Trust (Education): ICO 18 Sep 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to staff appointments and redundancies, along with plans for a new school building. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shaw Education Trust (the Trust) has correctly applied section 40(2) to part of the withheld information. The Commissioner also finds that the Trust has correctly applied section 43(2) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50714060

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.628457

Chesterfield Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 25 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested works and maintenance records for a property. Chesterfield Borough Council (the council) responded to the request, but the complainant was not satisfied with the time in which it took to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it responded outside of the required 20 working day timeframe. As the council has provided its response, the Commissioner does not require it take any steps.
EIR 5: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50574131

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.555457

Four Marks Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 19 May 2015

The complainant has requested a copy of the minutes of a closed session of Four Marks Parish Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Four Marks Parish Council has correctly applied the exception for internal communications at Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to the withheld information. He does not require it to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0571565

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.555399

Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd: ChD 22 Feb 2018

The claimants said that a filming of their eviction from property was an invasion of their privacy.
Held: The Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information included in the Programme about which they complain. The justification relied upon for interfering with their Article 8 rights was that the Programme contributed to a debate of general interest. Though the Programme did contribute to a debate of general interest, the inclusion of the Claimants’ private information went beyond what was justified for that purpose. The focus of the Programme was not upon the matters of public interest, but upon the drama of the conflict between Omar Ahmed and the Claimants, a conflict which had been encouraged to make ‘good television’.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 298 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMezvinsky and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 25-May-2018
Choice of Division and Business Lists
Claim that the publication of pictures of the young children of the celebrity claimants had been published by the defendant on-line without consent and without pixelation, in breach of their human rights, of data protection, and right to privacy. . .
See AlsoAli and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd ChD 19-Apr-2018
Decision as to costs after findings of misuse of private information . .
Appeal fromAli and Another v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd CA 16-Apr-2019
The claimant’s eviction had been filmed and broadcast by the defendants. They succeeded in an award of pounds 10,000 damages for breach of their rights of privacy. The parties cross appealed against the sum awarded and the finding respectively.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.616908

City of Lincoln Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Mar 2006

The complainant requested information about the method of construction of their property. The Council responded to the request and stated that it held no further relevant information, but the complainant disputed this. There was no information available to the Commissioner that suggested the relevant information had been withheld by the Council and so the complaint was not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50081142

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.533370

Department for Employment and Learning (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) in relation to employees dismissed by DEL under the Northern Ireland Civil Service Dignity at Work policy. DEL provided the complainant with some information in response to her request, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) of FOIA by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i) (personal data of third parties) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that DEL has correctly applied the above exemption to the withheld information. The Commissioner orders no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50512834

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.527326

Melton Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested a copy of minutes of a planning sub-group of the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that Melton Borough Council (MBC) correctly relied on EIR regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) not to release requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0462957

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.528116

Norfolk County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested copies of correspondence from a solicitor at Norfolk County Council (‘the council’) to his freeholder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the exemption at section 30(1)(b) where information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50506072

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.527384

Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Mar 2013

The complainant requested various, mainly financial, information from Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (the Council). The Council refused to comply with the request until the complainant paid a fee of Pounds 25 due to the time and effort it would be necessary to spend on these requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that this was not a valid reason to charge for a request and so the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to these requests within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a fresh response to the complainant that is compliant with the requirements of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50450565

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.528109

Homes and Communities Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Mar 2011

The complainant requested information that the public authority had considered or generated in respect of a particular land development in Liverpool. The public authority asserted that it had disclosed all the requested information it held but this was disputed by the complainant. Following investigation the Commissioner concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority had ultimately disclosed all the requested information it held save for certain emails contained on back up tapes which it may hold.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50290152

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.530341

Kent Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 5 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested a copy of Kent Police’s guidance on dealing with paedophile vigilante groups. Kent Police refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that it was exempt under section 31 (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely upon section 31 to withhold the information. However, she found that it breached section 10 by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50711133

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.617608

Kent Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 10 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (‘CCDC’) from Kent Police (‘KP’). KP would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA for the request in its entirety. In respect of parts (1) and (3) of the request the Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so KP was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held; this is also her position in respect of some of part (4) of the request. For part (2) of the request and the ‘legislation’ and ‘codes of practice’ elements of part (4) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions were applied incorrectly. The KP is required to confirm or deny whether this information is held and either disclose it or issue a fresh response compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 24: Complaint partly upheld FOI 23: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50728054

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.621333

Kent Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 1 May 2018

The complainant has requested information about unsolved crimes from Kent Police; to date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50733724

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.617810

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 7 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information on the guidance that was available to general practitioners in 2009 and which related to working with service users who had suffered sexual abuse in 2009. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) originally refused the request under section 21 of the FOIA on the basis that the information was already available to the public and provided links to where the information was available on the internet. The complainant was not satisfied that the DHSC had properly considered all the information that was likely to be held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DHSC changed its position and refused the request under section 12 on the basis that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse to confirm whether it holds any information relevant to the request. However it has failed to comply with section 17(5) in that it did not provide a refusal notice citing its reliance on section 12 within twenty working days of receiving the request. It has also failed to fulfil its duty under section 16 to provide advice and assistance to help the complainant make a refined request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to properly consider what advice and assistance it could provide the complainant in order to assist him make a refined request. If it is possible to provide such advice and assistance, the DHSC is required to do so.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50758474

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.635064

Kent Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 20 Apr 2017

The complainant has requested the service and / or disciplinary history of three named officers from Kent Police. Kent Police refused to provide this citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50653930

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.583864

Barclays Bank Plc v Guardian News Media Ltd: QBD 19 Mar 2009

The bank sought continuation of an injunction preventing publication by the defendant of papers leaked to relating to the claimant’s tax management. The claimant claimed in confidentiality. The papers did not reveal any unlawful activity. The defendant paper argued that the documents having been already disclosed, no confidentiality remained in them.
Held: Despite the publication, the claimant had an arguable case that confidence in the documents continued. However, had the full details been made available to the court on the original application, the court would not have granted the injunction. The injunction was continued but limited to restrict only the publication of the documents themselves without the claimant’s consent and whether in whole or in part.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 591 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedAttorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
CitedNorthern Rock Plc v The Financial Times Ltd and Another QBD 16-Nov-2007
The court was asked whether information remained confidential after its publication on a web-site.
Held: The court contrasted publication briefly on a web site which would not be generally accessible or used by the general public, and more . .
CitedCream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
CitedImutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another ChD 11-Jan-2001
The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the 1998 Act. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.326984

Ezsias v The Welsh Ministers: QBD 23 Nov 2007

The Claimant claimed under Section 7(9) of the 1998 Act for failures to disclose data to him following several requests. He sought (i) a declaration that the National Assembly had failed to comply with their obligations under the 1998 Act, (ii) damages in respect of that non-compliance, and (iii) an order requiring them to comply.
Held: The claim succeeded in that the response was out of time, but otherwise failed.

Judges:

Hickinbottom HHJ

Citations:

[2007] EWHC B15 (QB), [2007] All ER (D) 65

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 7(9)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEzsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 25-Jul-2006
EAT Employment Tribunal struck out unfair dismissal claims stating they were bound to fail. The employers had made two applications, one for a deposit to be ordered pursuant to rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal . .
See AlsoEzsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust CA 7-Mar-2007
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromEzsias v Welsh Ministers CA 24-Jun-2008
Renewed application for leave to appeal against orders making a limited declaration that there were certain breaches on the defendant’s part of their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 in that they did not disclose all disclosable . .
CitedDawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing Llp and Others ChD 6-Aug-2015
The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in . .
CitedElliott v Lloyds TSB Bank 24-Apr-2012
Leeds County Court – The court considered the extent of the obligation imposed by s 8(2) of the 1998 Act.
Held: The data controller is only required under the section to supply the individual with such personal data as is found after a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.296300

Sugar and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC): CA 25 Jan 2008

The court upheld Davis J’s decision that neither the Commissioner nor the Tribunal had had any jurisdiction to entertain Mr Sugar’s challenges to the BBC’s refusal to disclose the Balen report.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Lloyd LJ, Sir Paul Kennedy

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 191, [2008] 1 WLR 2289

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBritish Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 27-Apr-2007
The applicant sought publication of a report prepared for the respondent as to the even handedness of its reporting of matters in the middle east. The BBC had refused saying that the release of the report would have direct impact on its ability to . .
At ITSugar v Information Commissioner IT 29-Aug-2006
IT At this preliminary hearing the Tribunal finds that at the time of the request made by Mr Sugar to the BBC for a copy of the Balen Report it was held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or . .
At ITSugar v Information Commissioner IT 29-Aug-2006
The Preliminary Issue before the Information Tribunal
The Tribunal decided on 2 March 2006, under its rule 10 procedure (summary disposal of appeals – The Information Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2005 (the Rules), in the absence of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another HL 11-Feb-2009
The Corporation had commissioned a report as to its coverage of Middle East issues. The claimant requested a copy, and the BBC refused saying that the report having been obtained for its own journalistic purposes, and that it was not covered by the . .
See AlsoBritish Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 2-Oct-2009
Disclosure was sought of a report prepared by the BBC to assess the balance of its coverage of middle east affairs. The BBC said that the information was not held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature. One issue was whether . .
See AlsoSugar v Information Commissioner IT 14-May-2009
. .
See AlsoSugar v The British Broadcasting Commission and Another (No 2) CA 23-Jun-2010
The respondent had had prepared a report as to the balance of its reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Earlier proceedings had established that the purposes of the holding of the reporting included jurnalism. The claimant now appealed . .
See AlsoSugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291888

Douglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc: ChD 11 Apr 2003

The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of their celebration, and it could attract the protection given in law to confidential matters. What matters is whether the information has ‘the basic attribute of inaccessibility’. That right was to be balanced against the right of freedom of expression.
In this case the defendants had also acted in breach of the Press Complaints Commission code, and the balance fell in favour of the claimants. The developing law of private confidence is a fusion of commercial confidence and human rights. As to Data Protection, three Defendants were data controllers, the unauthorised pictures were personal data and publication is covered by the Act. When a data controller is responsible for the publication of hard copies that reproduce data that has previously been processed by means of equipment operated automatically, the publication forms part of the process and falls within the scope of the Act. The claimants were entitled to an award under the Act.

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 786 (Ch), Times 21-Apr-2003, [2003] 3 All ER 996, [2003] EMLR 31

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPrince Albert v Strange ChD 8-Feb-1849
The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
Held: . .
CitedFraser v Evans CA 1969
The law of confidence is based on the moral principles of loyalty and fair dealing. An injunction was sought to restrain an intended publication: ‘The court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory, when the . .
CitedCoco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
CitedShelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd ChD 1994
Still photographs had been taken of a forthcoming film, which the producers had taken steps to keep confidential.
Held: A chancery judge may grant an injunction to restrain the publication of photographs taken surreptitiously in circumstances . .
CitedCreation Records Ltd and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd ChD 29-Apr-1997
A pop group had posed at a specially devised scene, consisting of a white Rolls Royce in the swimming pool of a hotel and incorporating various other props. The object of the exercise was to take a photograph to be used as a record cover. The . .
CitedGilbert v The Star Newspaper Co Ltd ChD 1894
W.S. Gilbert had found that, in breach of the implied obligation upon cast members and theatre employees not to disclose the plot of the play in respect of which they were engaged, the plot of his comic opera ‘His Excellency’ had been disclosed to . .
CitedO Mustad and Son v Dosen and Another; O Mustad and Son vAllcock HL 1924
(Heard in 1924, but noted only in 1963) Dosen worked for a company T under a contract of employment that included an undertaking to keep confidential information acquired at work. His employer went into liquidation. The benefit of that company’s . .
CitedStephens v Avery ChD 1988
The parties had been friends and had discussed their sex lives. The defendant took the information to a newspaper and its editor, the second and subsequent defendants who published it. The plaintiff sought damages saying the conversations and . .
CitedPollard v Photographic Co 1888
Mrs Pollard had contracted with the defendant for photographs to be taken of herself for her own purposes. She found that the defendant was using the photograph for quite different purposes. She argued that, she having contracted for the photograph . .
CitedSports and General Press Agency v ‘Our Dogs’ Publishing Co CA 1917
The plaintiff had sold to the Press photographic rights to a dog show. An independent photographer took pictures and sold them to the defendant, who published them. The plaintiff sought to restrain further publication.
Held: An injunction was . .
See AlsoDouglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited, Hola SA, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Limited, Ramey CA 12-Feb-2003
The claimants claimed infringement of the privacy of their wedding celebrations. They requested permission for service out of the jurisdiction to join Mr Ramey as defendant, saying he had been the one who had taken some of the photographs in New . .

Cited by:

See AlsoDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 7-Nov-2003
The claimants had succeeded in a claim of distress occasioned by breach of confidence and breach of the Data Protection Act by the taking and selling of photographs from their wedding.
Held: As to losses, for the magazine who had bought the . .
Appeal fromDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
CitedBunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
CitedBunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
CitedHRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information, Intellectual Property, Human Rights

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.180704

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd etc: ChD 7 Nov 2003

The claimants had succeeded in a claim of distress occasioned by breach of confidence and breach of the Data Protection Act by the taking and selling of photographs from their wedding.
Held: As to losses, for the magazine who had bought the rights, the issue was decided by reference to the fee they would have charged to the defendants for a licence. That would have been just over a million pounds There was little guidance as to the level of damages for the type of distress claimed. The award for them together was andpound;14,600.

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2629 (Ch), [2004] EMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoDouglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 11-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .

Cited by:

See AlsoDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
CitedDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.187553

Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd: ChD 1 May 2020

Defendant’s application for strike out elements of claimant’s case – granted in part.
Held: The court summarised the core principles in considering an application to strike out a defence, saying that it: ‘ . . calls for analysis of the statement of case, without reference to evidence. The primary facts alleged are assumed to be true. The Court should not be deterred from deciding a point of law; if it has all the necessary materials it should ‘grasp the nettle” . . But it should not strike out under this sub-rule unless it is ‘certain’ that the statement of case, or the part under attack, discloses no reasonable [defence] . . Even then, the Court has a discretion; it should consider whether the defect might be cured by amendment; if so, it may refrain from striking out and give an opportunity to make such an amendment.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Warby

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1058 (Ch), [2020] EMLR 21

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoHRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Media

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.650757

BVG v LAR: QBD 21 Apr 2020

Application by the Claimant to strike out the defence or, alternatively, for summary judgment to be entered in the Claimant’s favour and for a permanent injunction.
Held: Summary judgment given. It was not necessary to resolve all the factual issues before concluding with ‘no hesitation’ that the claimant’s privacy rights would ‘far outweigh’ the free speech rights relied on by the defendant.

Judges:

Mr Justice Nicol

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 931 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Torts – Other

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.650199

University of Cambridge (Education): ICO 19 Jan 2021

The complainant has requested information about selective tests supplied by the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring. The University of Cambridge (‘the University’) released some information and withheld other information under section 22 of the FOIA (information intended for future publication) and section 43 (commercial interests). The University advised it does not hold the remaining information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the University has released all the recorded information it holds that is relevant to part of question 1, and questions 4, 7, 8 and 9 and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The University is entitled to rely on section 22(1) of the FOIA to withhold information within the scope of question 1, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The University is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of the FOIA to withhold information within the scope of question 2, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 22: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-43830

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.658021

ZXC v Bloomberg LP: QBD 17 Apr 2019

Claim for misuse of private information. The central issue is whether the Claimant can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that relates to a criminal investigation into his activities.

Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 970 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoZXC v Bloomberg Lp QBD 23-Feb-2017
Investigation of claimant was properly disclosed
The claimant requested the removal of material naming him from the defendant’s website. Criminal investigations into a company with which he was associated were begun, but then concluded. In the interim, the article was published. The hearing had . .

Cited by:

Appeal FromZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
See AlsoZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.636178

Candy v Holyoake and Others: QBD 2 Mar 2017

Mr Candy claimed remedies for what he alleged were completed or threatened wrongs in the form of breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) against five defendants, one of whom had filmed the claimant misbehaving whilst intoxicated, and threatened to publish it.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 373 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHolyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Jul-2016
The claimants alleged several torts had been involved in a substantial fraud on them by means of a funding loan. . .
See AlsoHolyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 29-Nov-2016
Application by the Defendants for security for costs. . .
See AlsoHolyoake v Candy and Another QBD 24-Jan-2017
The claimant sought to have access to his personal information held by the defendant. The defendant relied upon the legal professional privilege exemption. . .
See AlsoHolyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Feb-2017
Applications for further disclosure on the grounds of collateral waiver. . .
See AlsoCandy and Others v Holyoake and Another CA 28-Feb-2017
Appeal against grant of ‘notification injunction’ . .
CitedHutcheson (Formerly Known As ‘KGM’) v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 19-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against the refusal of a privacy order, protecting his identity in his claim.
Held: The appeal was refused. That Article 8 was ‘engaged’ was not conclusive of the question whether the claimant enjoyed a reasonable . .

Cited by:

CitedCandy v Holyoake and Others (No 2) QBD 22-Nov-2017
. .
See AlsoHolyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 21-Dec-2017
. .
CitedHRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.578047

United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Mar 2006

The complainant requested transcripts and written submissions provided by doctors to an Independent Review Panel relating to circumstances surrounding the death of the complainant’s mother. Initially the hospital stated that it did not hold the information, but did subsequently confirm that it did not hold the information, but did subsequently confirm that it did, responding outside of the 20 working day time limit. Additionally, the hospital argued the information was exempt under section 36, although during the course the Commissioner’s investigation the information was released. The Decision Notice therefore only considers the timeliness of the Hospital’s response and whether it issued a proper refusal notice. The Commissioner found that the Hospital did not comply with section 10 and did not issue a proper refusal notice as required under section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50069223

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.533390

Curridge Primary School (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested copies of all School Premises Alteration Requests (SPARs) relating to Curridge Primary School (the School) for a specific time period. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School did not hold the required information at the time of the request. He therefore considers the School should have applied regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR to the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FER0518636

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.527320

Daventry District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 May 2012

The complainant has requested a copy of a lease agreement between Daventry District Council (the council) and a developer, agreed in 2007. The council initially refused the request, stating that the requested information is not held by it. Subsequently it confirmed that no lease exists, but a conditional agreement to lease does exist. This was refused under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR on the grounds that disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial information, where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate commercial interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that Daventry District Council incorrectly refused to disclose the entire lease, but that some elements of the refused information may be withheld under the provisions of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the refused information, with redactions to the specified sections as described in Annex 1.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0416757

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.529461

University of Oxford (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between her solicitors, Morgan Cole LLP, to the University of Oxford’s (the University) solicitors, Nabarro LLP, regarding the alteration of a reference from a named professor. The University’s position is that the information which is not the complainant’s personal data is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of the FOIA as it is subject to a claim of legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was correct to rely on section 42 to withhold the requested information. However, in responding outside the prescribed 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that the council has breached section 10. Therefore, he does not require the University to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50435032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.528153

Sunwick Farm Limited and Scottish Ministers: SIC 13 Oct 2008

Sunwick Farm Limited (Sunwick) requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) documentation relating to a Stage 1 Internal Review pursuant to the EU Agricultural Subsidies Appeals Procedure. The Ministers responded by providing some information, stating that they did not hold other information and arguing that certain of the information they held was exempt under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA. Following a review, in which the Ministers upheld their original decision without amendment, Sunwick remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had partially failed to deal with Sunwick’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He was satisfied that the Ministers were correct in their determination that certain information was not held, and also in applying section 36(1) to document 4, but found that they had been incorrect in their application of section 30(b)(ii) to the information in one document (as its release would not, and would not be likely to, substantially prejudice the free and frank exchange of views). He required the release of this document to the applicant.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 136 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.434241

College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v MEE Rijkeboer: ECJ 22 Dec 2008

ECJ Opinion – Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC Fundamental Rights – Right of access to personal data to any third party Suppression Communications – Exercise Period of the access principle of proportionality

Judges:

Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer AG

Citations:

C-553/07, [2008] EUECJ C-553/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionCollege van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v M.E.E. Rijkeboer ECJ 7-May-2009
Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data Directive 95/46/EC – Respect for private life – Erasure of data – Right of access to data and to information on the recipients of data – Time limit on the exercise of the right . .
CitedGoogle Spain Sl v Agencia Espanola De Proteccion De Datos (AEPD), Gonzalez ECJ 13-May-2014
Internet Search Engine – Name Removal
ECJ Grand Chamber – Personal data – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data – Directive 95/46/EC – Articles 2, 4, 12 and 14 – Material and territorial scope – Internet search engines . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Human Rights

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280001

HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd.: ChD 17 Mar 2006

Application for summary judgment.
Held: Granted

Judges:

Mr Justice Blackburne

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 522 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 13-Jan-2006
The claimant had for many years kept private journals, whose contents were circulated within a small circle of friends. He now sought to claim confidentiality and copyright in them when the defendant sought to publish them.
Held: There was an . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromAssociated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales CA 21-Dec-2006
The defendant newspaper appealed summary judgment against it for breach of confidence and copyright infringement having published the claimant’s journals which he said were private.
Held: Upheld, although the judge had given insufficient . .
CitedHRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.239189

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 30 Mar 2017

The complainant requested information relating to the closed file WO 71/1062. The National Archives (TNA) released some information and refused to provide the remaining information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation TNA also applied section 38 (health and safety) to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50647818

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.583782

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 6 Mar 2019

The complainant requested a copy of the closed extract from the file AIR 81/1953. The request was refused by the National Archives (TNA) on the grounds of health and safety (section 38 of FOIA) and third party personal data (section 40 of FOIA). The Commissioner has found that sections 38(1) and 40 are engaged. The Commissioner found a procedural breach of section 10. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50776907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.635092

National Archives (Central Government) FS50796993: ICO 10 Jun 2019

The complainant has requested information about a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) refused to disclose the information citing the exemptions in sections 41(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 41(1) – provided in confidence to the withheld information. The Commissioner found that TNA breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50796993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.639184

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 28 Mar 2017

The complainant requested a copy of a closed file. The request was refused by the National Archives (TNA) on the grounds of health and safety (section 38 of FOIA). The Commissioner has found that section 38(1) is engaged and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 38: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50654519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.583783

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 20 Jul 2017

The complainant has requested nine Metropolitan Police files relating to the ‘Nude Murders’. TNA refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(a)-(c), 38 and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 31(1)(a)-(c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50650734

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.593873

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 17 Jul 2017

The complainant has requested from The National Archives (TNA) a closed extract with TNA’s reference PREM/3/139/11B/1, from the open parent file PREM/3/139/11B – Prime Minister’s Office: Operational Correspondence and Papers. Explosives. Tube Alloys. TNA has withheld this information under section 24(1) (national security), section 26(1)(a) (defence of the British Islands or any colony) and section 27(1)(relations between the United Kingdom and any other state). TNA considers the balance of the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information engages section 24(1) of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner has decided that TNA breached sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the FOIA because it failed to provide the complainant with adequate refusal notices. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 24: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50657106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.593874

Copeland Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 27 Jun 2018

The complainant submitted a request to Copeland Borough Council (the Council) for a copy of an agreement between the Mayor and the leader of the Labour group of councillors. The Council responded and explained that it did not hold a copy of the agreement. The complainant disputed this response on two grounds. Firstly, she argued that in her view it was likely that the Council did physically held a copy of the agreement. Secondly, she argued that even if this was not the case, then the Mayor held this agreement on behalf of the Council and therefore the Council can be said to hold it for the purposes of FOIA by virtue of section 3(2)(b) of the legislation. With regard to the first ground of complaint the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the Council did not physically hold a copy of the agreement at the time of the request. With regard to the second ground of complaint, the Commissioner has concluded that the copy of the agreement held by the Mayor is not by held on behalf of the Council. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the Council does not hold a copy of the agreement by virtue of section 3(2)(b) of FOIA.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50713792

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.621219

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 16 Mar 2017

The complainant made a freedom of information request to The National Archives (TNA) for a full and uncensored version of a TNA file. TNA took 108 working days to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA breached section 17(3) in its handling of the request but she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50640180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.583781

Prestatyn Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Mar 2013

The complainant requested information about tenders submitted to Prestatyn Town Council (‘the Council’). The Council disclosed some information but withheld other information under section 43 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council withdrew its reliance on section 43 of the FOIA and disclosed all information held relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide the requested information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50465574

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.528142

Denbighshire County Council (Decision Notice) FS50068239: ICO 27 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information relating to the unexpected retirement of the Corporate Director of Lifelong Learning at Denbighshire County Council (‘DCC’). Although DCC released some information in response to this request, it withheld other information. DCC argued that the withheld information was personal data and that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act. It specified FOIA Section 40 as the relevant exemption from its duty to disclose this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct when it cited Section 40(2) as its basis for withholding the information that the complainants requested. However, the Commissioner finds that it failed to comply with Section 17(1)(b), Section 17(7)(a) and Section 17(7)(b) of the Act when it did not specify which exemption it sought to apply to the requested information and when it did not provide the complainants with information about its review procedure and about the right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s office.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50068239

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.533492

Bristol City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Apr 2006

The complainant made two different requests, on 22 February 2005 and the 23 March 2005 respectively, for information about street trees. The Council responded substantively to the first request on 5 April 2005 by providing information requested, but the second request was initially refused on the grounds that it was not framed in terms of the Freedom of Information Act. After the Commissioner’s intervention the Council reconsidered the second request under the Act and provided the information on 23 November 2005. The Commissioner has therefore decided that in failing to respond substantively to the requests within 20 working days the Council were in breach of the Act. However, as the information has been provided no steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50077721

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.533395

Denbighshire County Council (Decision Notice) FS50065294: ICO 27 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information seen by Cabinet Members of Denbighshire County Council (DCC) in relation to the unexpected retirement of the Corporate Director of Lifelong Learning. The complainant had been in correspondence with DCC about its response to earlier FOIA requests of a similar nature submitted by other parties. DCC’s response did not explicitly state which exemption it sought to apply when refusing to provide the requested information, and nor did it offer an internal review or provide the information about the complainant’s right to complain to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has decided that DCC therefore failed to comply with some of its procedural obligations under FOIA when responding to this request. The Commissioner recognises that DCC was alluding to section 40 (Personal Data) as the basis for its refusal. Having examined the information caught by the scope of this request, the Commissioner decided that DCC had correctly applied section 40 in the circumstances of this case. More information about the Commissioner’s reasoning in this case can be found in the decision notice transcript.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50065294

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.533491

NHS Norfolk (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Mar 2013

The complainant made a freedom of information request to NHS Norfolk for information regarding personnel issues, governance and management of the Trust. The complainant has not received a substantive response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to issue a response in compliance with section 1 of the FOIA or otherwise issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50480096

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.528129

E and Police Service of Scotland: SIC 15 Oct 2014

On 3 February 2014, Mr E asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (the Police) for information pertaining to investigations undertaken by the Police. The Police refused to confirm or deny whether they held any information, but stated that if the information was held it would be personal data and its disclosure would be unlawful.
During the investigation, the Police provided a response to one part of Mr E’s request. They also stated that, if information relating to the other parts was held (which they refused to confirm or deny), most of it would be Mr E’s own personal data.
The Commissioner found that the Police had generally responded to Mr E’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. The Commissioner concluded that the Police had been incorrect to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of information which they later disclosed, but that they were entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether they held the remainder of the information.

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 223 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.538105