Category: Information

University of Plymouth (Education (University)): ICO 30 Mar 2015

The complainant requested from Plymouth University (‘the University’) the conclusions of a report into allegations connected to the former Chairman of its Board of Governors. The University withheld the information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c), 40(2), 41 and 42. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2). He therefore does not require the University to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570421

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555260

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 2 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to items of evidence that had gone missing, or been lost or stolen. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) claimed that compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 12, and he does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552355

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555141

Staffordshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 29 Apr 2015

The complainant submitted a request to Staffordshire County Council (the Council) for the copies of the three highest scoring tenders received by the Council regarding a particular contract. The Council refused to disclose the tenders relying on section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that whilst section 43(2) of FOIA applies to the entirety of one of the tenders in question, it can only be used to withhold parts of the other two tenders. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Council has breached sections 17(1) and 17(3) because of its delays in issuing a refusal notice and completing its public interest deliberations. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with the parts of Affinity Trust’s tender which that organisation accepted were not commercially sensitive. Such information is identified in the letter sent by Affinity Trust to the Council dated 17 April 2014. Provide the complainant with the redacted version of company B’s ‘T52 Supporting Business Plan’ as it was provided to the Council on 22 April 2014. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 43: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50556537

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555357

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Central Government): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to planning policies concerning wind energy. The Department of the Environment stated that it had already provided all the relevant information it held in response to a previous request made by the complainant. The complainant disagreed and requested an internal review. The Department failed to provide the complainant with the outcome of the internal review until the Commissioner intervened. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department failed to comply with regulation 11(4) of the EIR. No further steps are required.
EIR 11: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0565436

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555187

High Speed Two Limited (Education (Other)): ICO 16 Mar 2015

The complainant made a freedom of information request to HS2 Ltd for copies of reports prepared by the Major Projects Authority on its assessment of the HS2 rail project (‘HS2’). HS2 Ltd dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act and refused the request under the section 35(1)(a) exemption although during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it changed its reliance to the section 36(2)(b) and (c) exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for environmental information and ought to have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). The Commissioner considered whether the regulation 12(4)(e) exception (internal communications) would apply but found that it was not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant copies of the MPA reports from November 2011 and June 2012. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0090 withdrawn.
FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0536325

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555203

Countess of Chester Hospital (Health (Other)): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant made a series of 16 requests to the Countess of Chester Hospital (the Hospital) between the 2 July 2014 and 8 August 2014 in respect of the use of a particular laxative, Movicol, in the treatment of children under five years old. The Hospital provided some information, relied on section 40(2) – personal information, to withheld information on the number of children under five treated with the drug over a given period and denied holding other information. The complainant has complained to the Commissioner about the responses to three of these requests. These include the refusal to provide her with statistics on the use of the drug on under-fives and two requests for information about the risks assessment and approval of the drug which the Hospital denies holding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Hospital has dealt with these requests in accordance with the provisions of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of these requests.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50547471

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555180

Bridgnorth District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 May 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to tenders for provision of the 2014 Christmas lights. Bridgnorth Town Council disclosed some information and withheld other information because it was subject to ‘commercial confidentiality’; it also suggested that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bridgnorth Town Council: Failed to issue a compliant refusal notice and breached section 17(1) and 17(5) of the FOIA. Failed to demonstrate that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) and failed to show that the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2) was engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested tender information to the complainant. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 14: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565917

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555372

Plymouth City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 16 Mar 2015

The complainant requested the names of two parties connected to the reporting of an alleged burial of industrial waste. Plymouth City Council (the ‘Council’) initially confirmed that it held the requested information but advised that it was exempt by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it subsequently advised that it had not recorded the names so the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information; he does however find a breach of section 16. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50562989

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555242

Aberystwyth Town Council (Local Government (Town Council)): ICO 5 May 2015

The complainant requested a copy of the minutes of the staffing panel meeting in May 2013. Aberystwyth Town Council (‘the Council’) stated that it did not hold the information requested which the complainant subsequently contested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50572379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555365

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust ‘the Trust’ for a copy of the user guide for ‘RiO’ its electronic Patient Record System. The Trust refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50560264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555251

Royal Society for The Protection of Birds v Scottish Ministers: SIC 18 Dec 2014

SIC Impact of wind farm developments on bird populations On 13 February 2014, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (the RSPB) asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for specified information relating to bird populations.
The Ministers sought clarification of this request and the RSPB confirmed that it was seeking information relating to the impact of named east coast wind farm projects on bird populations. The Ministers initially failed to provide the RSPB with a response to this clarified request. Following a review, the Ministers claimed the information was excepted from disclosure under regulation 10(4)(c) of the EIRs (as a request formulated in too general a manner).
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had failed to respond to the RSPB’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs. This was because it had wrongly applied the exception contained in regulation 10(4)(c) of the EIRs and had failed to comply fully with its related duty to provide advice and assistance under regulation 9(2) of the EIRs. She required the Ministers to provide the RSPB with a review outcome that did not rely upon the exception in regulation 10(4)(c).

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 261 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.542675

House of Commons (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Aug 2007

The complainant made a request to the House of Commons Treasury Committee for access to three files. The House refused to disclose all the information in two of the three files and some of the information in the third file as to disclose the information would infringe parliamentary privilege and is therefore exempt under section 34 of the Act. The House produced a certificate signed by the Speaker of the House of Commons certifying this, production of a certificate under section 34 is conclusive evidence that disclosure would infringe parliamentary privilege and so the Commissioner finds that section 34 (an absolute exemption) is engaged.
FOI 34: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50116013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.533044

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Aug 2007

The complainant requested a copy of legal advice obtained by the FCO. The legal advice concerned the issue of whether the UK Government had discharged any duty of care it owed as trustee of the Southern Rhodesia Widows’ Pension Fund when it handed over the colony of Southern Rhodesia to the Government of Zimbabwe. The FCO claimed that it was exempt from disclosure as section 42 of the Act, which relates to legal professional privilege, was engaged. The FCO further argued that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated the FCO’s application of section 42 and found that the information requested is legal advice, but that privilege was waived when the FCO disclosed large parts of the advice to the complainant and others. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is not engaged, and requires the FCO to disclose the requested information in full to the complainant. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, who have ruled that the appeal should be allowed and the decision overturned.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50120007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.533038

Office of Communications, Regina (on the Application of) v Information Commissioner: Admn 8 Apr 2008

Appeal against order for disclosure of details of location, ownership and technical attributes of mobile phone cellular-based stations.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1445 (Admin), [2009] Env LR 1, [2008] ACD 65

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 57

Cited by:

Appeal from – Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner CA 20-Feb-2009
Grounds for non-disclosure treated cumulatively
An applicant had requested disclosure of information regarding the environmental impact of electro-magnetic radiation from mobile phones. The court considered the balance between the need to disclose information and the maintaining of exceptions to . .
At first Instance – Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner SC 27-Jan-2010
The parties disputed the publication of materials relating to the exact placement of mobile phone masts. The operators wanted the information excepted from disclosure for fear of criminal acts and also said that disclosure would breach their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Media

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270599

WRN Ltd v Ayris: QBD 21 May 2008

The claimant sought to enforce post employment contracts against the defendant. One issue was whether or not business cards that had been given to the employee in the course of his employment, as well as cards that were already in his possession and which he brought with him at the start of his employment, were the property of the employer.
Held: The cards, including those in the latter category, were the property of the employer. The employee had effectively given the cards that he had brought with him to the employer by using them for the purpose of carrying out his work. Mr Susman submitted that no relevant distinction can be made between a collection of business cards amassed on behalf of a company and a collection of e-mails received and sent on behalf of a company. But that submission begs the question. Judge Seymour’s decision does not assist in determining whether or not the content of an e-mail is to be regarded as property.

Judges:

HH Judge Richard Seymour QC

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1080 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas CA 1991
Reasonability Test of Post Employment Restriction
The court re-stated the principles applicable in testing whether an employee’s restrictive covenant was reasonable: ‘The court cannot say that a covenant in one form affords no more than adequate protection to a covenantee’s relevant legitimate . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins and Another CA 19-Jul-2013
The court was asked whether the appellant company was entitled to an order requiring its former Chief Executive Officer, after the termination of his appointment, to give it access to the content of emails relating to its business affairs, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268694

W v Egdell: CA 1990

The plaintiff was detained in a secure mental hospital, under a hospital order coupled with a restriction order, after pleading guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The defendant, a consultant psychiatrist, was engaged on his behalf to prepare a report in connection with an intended application to a mental health review tribunal for his discharge. The defendant’s report presented a disturbing picture and it led to the withdrawal of the application. The defendant was nevertheless so concerned that matters in his report ought to be known to those responsible for the plaintiff’s care and discharge that he sent a copy of it to the medical director at the hospital, with a view to its onward transmission to the Home Office. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of his contractual duty of confidence.
Held: The appeal failed. There was no sufficient duty of confidence to prevent the health professional disclosing that he thought the prisoner likely to continue to represent a risk to others: ‘It has never been doubted that the circumstances here were such as to impose on Doctor Egdell a duty of confidence owed to W. He could not lawfully sell the contents of his report to a newspaper, as the judge held . . nor could he without a breach of the law as well as professional etiquette, discuss the case in a learned article or in his memoirs or in gossiping with friends, unless he took appropriate steps to conceal the identity of W.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 Ch 359

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – W v Egdell 1989
The psychiatrist had been engaged by W’s solicitors to examine him and prepare a report to go to the Tribunal hearing an application for the transfer or conditional discharge of W from a secure unit. His report was damning. W withdrew the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Cited – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2016
The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.238533

Mircom International Content Management and Consulting Ltd and Others v Virgin Media Ltd and Another: ChD 16 Jul 2019

The claimants, producers of pornographic films, sought disclosure by the defendant internet service provider of certain internet protocol addresses, wishing to pursue those it said had wrongfully downloaded their films. The court was asked first whether the transfer of such information would mean that the claimants would become ‘data controllers’
Held: Such an order would not make the recipient a data controller for the purposes of article 4(7). However the action failed because of failures in both the factual and expert evidence offered by the claimants.

Judges:

Mr Recorder Campbell QC sitting as a High Court judge

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1827 (Ch), [2019] WLR(D) 408

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 2018, Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/679

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .
Cited – Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Others v Telefonica UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2012
The claimant IP rights holder sought disclosure by the defendant broadband internet provider of the addresses of customers thought to have participated in file sharing, in breach of those rights. . .
Cited – Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland ECJ 19-Oct-2016
Over-regulation of storage of personal data
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Article 2(a) – Article 7(f) – Definition of ‘personal data’ – Internet protocol addresses – Storage of data . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.640073

Cornwall Housing (Other): ICO 5 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information from Cornwall Council (‘the council’) concerning a particular property. This request was transferred to Cornwall Housing (‘the authority’). The authority provided an initial response but upon internal review said that it had decided that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider the authority’s failure to rely on section 14(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority breached section 17(1) of the FOIA for failing to rely on section 14(1) within 20 working days. There are no steps to take.
FOI 14: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570888

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.555179

HM Treasury (Central Government): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information relating to a Government consultation on introducing a statutory code for large pub-owning companies. The public authority subsequently disclosed most of the information held within the scope of the request. The authority however withheld a small amount of information in reliance on the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a), 40(2) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) to withhold all the information within the scope of the request not previously disclosed to the complainant (the disputed information). No steps required.
FOI 35: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50541337

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.555204

Broseley Town Council (Local Government (Town Council)): ICO 12 May 2015

The complainant has requested information concerning the financial arrangements of the Broseley Town Council’s Birch Meadow Cafe Project and also for details of the Town Clerk’s salary. The Council has relied on section 14(1) to withhold information in respect of the Cafe Project and on section 40(2) to withhold details of its Clerk’s salary. The Commissioner’s decision is that Broseley Town Council has correctly applied sections 14(1) and 40(2) to the information which the complainant seeks. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the public the pay scale of its Town Clerk. He does not require the Council to disclose the exact details of her pay. The public Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557366

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.555374

Chief Constable of North Wales Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 20 May 2015

The complainant requested information relating to a complaint about electoral fraud by a candidate in a particular by-election. North Wales Police responded to the complainant’s request by neither confirming nor denying whether it held the requested information in reliance on section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Wales Police has correctly applied the provisions of section 40(5) in the circumstances of this case. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50572287

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.555384

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 23 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information about the number of civil servants involved in the rollout of Universal Jobmatch (UJM) who received a box 1 review marking and the associated costs. DWP has refused the request citing FOIA section 12 – costs exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. However, DWP failed to discharge its duty under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563511

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.555185

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Education (Other)): ICO 27 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information about a consultation on a price control regime: the Revenue = Incentives + Innovation + Outputs (rIIO) model. Ofgem has said it does not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Ofgem does not hold the requested information. He is satisfied that Ofgem has met its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA and he does not require Ofgem to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.555349

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 2 Mar 2015

The complainant requested the name of a Community Centre whose statement in support of the Government’s Mandatory Work Placement Scheme was quoted by the public authority in its guide for other organisations considering whether to join the scheme. The public authority withheld the name of the centre in reliance on the exemptions at sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(b), 36(2)(c), 38(1) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to withhold the name of the Community Centre on the basis of the exemptions at sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(b), 36(2)(c), 38(1) and 43(2). He also finds the public authority in breach of section 17(1) FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 29: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld FOI 38: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558511

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.555184

Wood Fold Primary School (Education (School)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information from Wood Fold Primary School (‘the School’) broadly relating to the suspension of a member of the School’s governing body. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information it holds that falls within the scope of requests 4 and 5. The Commissioner has also determined that the School holds no further recorded information within the scope of requests 2 and 3. The Commissioner requires the School to take no steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50551908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.555265

Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Nov 2005

The complainant requested a copy of the Non-Urgent Patient Transport Policy from the Trust. The Trust did not provide the policy as it does not exist at present but they failed to respond to the complainant’s request and inform them of this within the statutory 20 working day period. The Trust has confirmed that they will supply the complainant with a copy of the policy once it has been formulated.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50069737

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.533295

Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinaporssi and Satamedia (Approximation Of Laws): ECJ 8 May 2008

ECJ Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of individuals with regard to the tax treatment of private data character data on income and wealth – Freedom of Expression Media Privilege personal Privacy

Judges:

Kokott AG

Citations:

C-73/07, [2008] EUECJ C-73/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 95/46/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinaporssi and Satamedia (Approximation Of Laws) ECJ 16-Dec-2008
ECJ Directive 95/46/EC Scope – Processing and flow of tax data of a personal nature – Protection of natural persons – Freedom of expression . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267593

Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner: Admn 11 Apr 2008

Statutory appeal by the Office of Government Commerce (the OGC) against two decisions of the Information Tribunal relating to gateway reviews carried out by the OGC of the Government’s identity card programme.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 774 (Admin), [2008] ACD 54, [2009] 3 WLR 627, [2010] QB 98

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 27-May-2011
The respondent had circularised local authorities to say that when assessing future local housing needs a proper material consideration was the proposed Localism Bill which would lead to the replacement of ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’ on which such . .
Cited – Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 8-Sep-2016
The claimant had cohabited with the deceased: ‘The claimant seeks a declaration in one of two alternative forms:
i) Pursuant to s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 . . that s.1A(2)(a) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 . . is to be read as including . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266894

Huber v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (European Citizenship): ECJ 3 Apr 2008

ECJ An Austrian businessman who had moved to Germany complained that storing data relating to him in a central register of foreign nationals discriminated against him as there was no such database for German nationals. Advocate General Poiares Maduro pointed out that: ‘The concept of necessity has a long history in Community law and is well established as part of the proportionality test. It means that the authority adopting a measure which interferes with a right protected by Community law in order to achieve a legitimate aim must demonstrate that the measure is the least restrictive for the achievement of this aim.’ If the processing might be liable to infringe the fundamental right to privacy, article 8 became relevant, and the Court had held in the Austrian Radio case that if a national measure was incompatible with article 8, then it also failed to pass the threshold of article 7(e) of the Directive (para AG27). The European Court of Justice did not refer to this paragraph in its judgment and contented itself with saying that ‘the concept of necessity laid down by article 7(e) of Directive 95/46 . . cannot have a meaning which varies between member states. It therefore follows that what is at issue is a concept which has its own independent meaning in Community law and which must be interpreted in a manner which fully reflects the objective of that directive, as laid down in article 1(1) thereof.’
The central register would only comply with article 7(e) if it contained only the data necessary for the authorities to apply the law relating to rights of residence and its centralised nature enabled that legislation to be more effectively applied.

Judges:

Poiares Maduro AG

Citations:

C-524/06, [2008] EUECJ C-524/06, [2009] 1 CMLR 1360

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

Cited – South Lanarkshire Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner SC 29-Jul-2013
Commissioner’s Approach not in Breach
In May 2010, a Mr Irvine made requests under the 2002 Act for information from South Lanarkshire Council. He wanted to know how many of their employees in a particular post were placed at 10 particular points on the Council’s pay scales. His . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266448

Norfolk County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 13 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information from Norfolk County Council (the council) about Court documents relating to the possession of a specific property. The council responded to the request outside the prescribed 20 working day time frame. The Commissioner’s decision therefore is that the council has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566168

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.555345

Walberswick Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jul 2012

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of a specific Councillors report and other information that Walberswick Parish Council holds relating to a meeting that considered an internal review of previous information requests. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:In relation to point e of the requested information, Walberswick Parish Council did not deal with the request in accordance with section 1(1)(a), section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the FOIA, in that it did not inform the complainant that the information was held, or disclose that information within the statutory time limit. In relation to points a and d, the Commissioner’s decision is that Walberswick Parish Council did not deal with the request in accordance with section 10(1) of the FOIA, in that it did not disclose the information within the statutory time limit. In relation to points b, c, and f of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Walberswick Parish Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50423033

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.529680

Walberswick Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Nov 2011

The complainant asked Walberswick Parish Council (the council) to provide information on various matters including the council’s code of conduct, correspondence submitted to the council, the council’s standing orders, and advice provided to the council. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not comply with sections 1, 10 and 17 of the FOIA when responding to the complainant’s request. This is because it did not provide the requested information, or a valid refusal notice, within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) notes that the council has now provided a new response to the complainant’s request. He does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50379341

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.531122

Wiltshire Council (Local Government (Unitary Council)): ICO 19 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested correspondence between the Council and a number of named parties relating to a particular planning application. The Council applied regulation 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality, to a financial report. At the internal review stage the Council realised that it held additional information falling within the scope of the request. However it went on to apply regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable, to this information on the basis that locating and retrieving the additional information would place an unreasonable burden on the Council. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council extended its application of regulation 12(4)(b) to the entire request arguing that it was manifestly unreasonable on the basis of both the time it would take to find the information and on the basis that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. Nor is the Commissioner satisfied that the request can be refused under regulation 12(4)(b) on the grounds that it is vexatious. However the Commissioner is satisfied that the burden of complying with the request in terms of the time involved does render it manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to provide adequate advice and assistance under regulation 9 and that it failed to respond to the request within the 20 working days and so breached regualtion14(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance under regulation 9, aimed at helping the complainant make a refined request.
EIR 9: Upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Partly upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld EIR 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0550430

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555263

Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Others v Telefonica UK Ltd and Another: CA 21 Dec 2012

The claimant IP rights holder sought disclosure by the defendant broadband internet provider of the addresses of customers thought to have participated in file sharing, in breach of those rights.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Sullivan, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1740, [2012] WLR(D) 396, [2013] EMLR 26, [2013] Bus LR 414, [2013] RPC 18, [2013] 2 CMLR 27

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Another v Telefonica UK Ltd ChD 26-Mar-2012
Golden Eye and 13 other claimants sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against Telefonica UK Ltd trading as O2, one of the six largest retail internet service providers in the UK. The object of the claim was to obtain disclosure of the names and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mircom International Content Management and Consulting Ltd and Others v Virgin Media Ltd and Another ChD 16-Jul-2019
The claimants, producers of pornographic films, sought disclosure by the defendant internet service provider of certain internet protocol addresses, wishing to pursue those it said had wrongfully downloaded their films. The court was asked first . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.467629

Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Another v Telefonica UK Ltd: ChD 26 Mar 2012

Golden Eye and 13 other claimants sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against Telefonica UK Ltd trading as O2, one of the six largest retail internet service providers in the UK. The object of the claim was to obtain disclosure of the names and addresses of customers of O2 who were alleged to have committed infringements of copyright through peer-to-peer file sharing.
Held:
Arnold J set out the respective rights of the claimants and those whose personal data would be disclosed if a Norwich Pharmacal order was made. He said: ‘The Claimants’ rights
The Claimants’ position can be summarised as follows. They are owners of copyrights which have been infringed on a substantial scale by individuals who have been engaged in . . file sharing. The only way in which they can ascertain the identity of those individuals and seek compensation for past infringements is by (i) obtaining disclosure of the names and addresses of the Intended Defendants, (ii) writing letters of claim to the Intended Defendants seeking voluntary settlements and (iii) where it is cost-effective to do so, bringing proceedings for infringement.
The Intended Defendants’ rights
The Intended Defendants are not, of course, before me. With the assistance of Consumer Focus’ submissions, however, it seems to me that the position of the Intended Defendants can be summarised as follows. It is likely that most of the Intended Defendants are ordinary consumers, many of whom may be on low incomes and without ready access to legal advice, particularly specialised legal advice of the kind required for a claim of this nature. The grant of the order sought will invade their privacy and impinge upon their data protection rights. Furthermore, it will expose them to receiving letters of claim and may expose them to proceedings for infringement in circumstances where they may not be guilty of infringement, where the subject matter of the claim may cause them embarrassment, where a proper defence to the claim would require specialised legal advice that they may not be able to afford and where they may not consider it cost-effective for them to defend the claim even if they are innocent.’

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 723 (Ch), [2013] EMLR 1, [2012] RPC 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Others v Telefonica UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2012
The claimant IP rights holder sought disclosure by the defendant broadband internet provider of the addresses of customers thought to have participated in file sharing, in breach of those rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.452445