Category: Information

Huntington Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2006

ICO The complainant requested information contained in Counsel’s opinion which had been obtained by the Council in 2000. HTC refused to provide this information citing section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) as the basis for its refusal. The Commissioner recognises that there are public interest arguments favouring disclosure in this case, but considers that those arguments are outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50072299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.533459

Department for International Development: ICO 18 Feb 2013

ICO Decision Notice – The complainant has requested information from the Department for International Development (DfID) regarding legislation that governs their actions and details about their published accounts. DfID refused the requests on the grounds that they were vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner’s decision is that both requests are vexatious and that DfID was entitled to refuse them. No further action is required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50470827

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.527947

East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Jun 2006

ICO The complainant made a request for all information held in relation to complaints about various medical professionals and employees of the Trust. The Trust explained that information on some of the individuals was exempt under section 40. The Commissioner decided that the information requested constituted personal data, some of it being sensitive personal data, about various patients who made complaints to the Trust and disclosure would be in breach of the Data Protection Act. The Commissioner has decided that section 40 was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant. However he has decided that the Trust failed to comply with s.10 and s.17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50071494

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.533451

Kirkby Malzeard Laverton and Dallowgill Parish (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Sep 2010

The complainant requested a copy of the minutes of the Council’s meeting dated 30 November 2009 and a copy of an email referred to by the Chairman during this meeting from ‘unnamed person’ or their solicitor. The Council provided the complainant with a copy of the minutes but refused to disclose the email requested, as it considered this was subject to legal professional privilege and deemed the request itself to be vexatious. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council changed its view and issued a further refusal notice to the complainant advising her that the requested email is not held for the purposes of the Act by virtue of section 3(2)(a). The Commissioner has investigated and he has determined that the requested information is environmental information and therefore the request should have been dealt with under the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided from the evidence available that the requested information is held by the Chairman of the Council on behalf of the Council for its own purposes in accordance with regulation 3(2)(b) of the EIR. He has therefore ordered the Council to either disclose the requested email to the complainant or issue a further refusal notice advising why the requested email cannot be disclosed under the EIR within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 3 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50294322

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.531662

Larne Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Sep 2010

ICO The complainant requested information relating to funding granted by the Council. The Council was of the view that it had already provided the complainant with copies or access to inspect all of the information held by it in relation to her request. The complainant argued that the Council held more information than had already been provided. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that no further recorded information is held in relation to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50236214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.531666

Somerset County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Aug 2012

ICO Southwest One is a joint venture between the Somerset County Council, Avon and Somerset Police Authority, Taunton Deane Borough Council and IBM in order to manage support services for the three public authorities. The complainant submitted a request to Somerset County Council (the Council) for a copy of the MoU signed by the three public bodies which dealt with a number of issues regarding their engagement with Southwest One. The Council disclosed a copy of this contract but redacted certain parts of it on the basis of section 43 of FOIA, the commercial prejudice exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the redactions – the ‘Deferred Payment Redactions’ are not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2); further redactions – the ‘Apportionment Redactions’ – are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) but the public interest favours disclosure of these redactions; and a final set of redactions -the ‘Percentage Increases in Services Redactions’ – are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and for this information the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with unredacted copies of the parts of the MoU to which the – ‘Deferred Payment Redactions’ and the -‘Apportionment Redactions’ have been applied.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50438297

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.529772

NHS Wakefield District (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jun 2011

ICO The complainant requested information relating to details of all correspondence between NHS Wakefield District Primary Care Trust, NHS Yorkshire and Humber Strategic Health Authority and the Department for Health concerning plans to build a specialist surgical centre at Dewsbury and District Hospital. The PCT refused the request citing section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that that the exemption under section 36(2)(b)(ii) was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in favour of disclosing the information. The Commissioner did however record a procedural breach of the Act in relation to the PCT’s handling of this request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0166 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50312123

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.530594

Suffolk Coastal District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jan 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information related to a high profile prosecution under the listed building legislation in respect of Darsham House. The Commissioner’s decision is that Suffolk Coastal District Council has correctly applied the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(f), 12(5)(b) and 13. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0458198

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.527890

Rechnungshof v Osterreichischer Rundfunk and others: ECJ 20 May 2003

ECJ Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof
Austrian law required public bodies subject to control by the Court of Auditors to report to it the names, salaries and pensions above a certain level paid to their employees and pensioners. The Court of Auditors would then make a report to Parliament which would be made public, the object being to exert pressure on public bodies to keep remuneration within reasonable limits. The Court of Auditors brought proceedings against Austrian radio and other bodies who refused to provide the information and some of the individuals involved brought proceedings contesting the compatibility of the legislation with their fundamental rights and with the Directive. A principal issue was whether publishing these data fell within article 7(c) or (e).
Held: The European Court of Justice stated that ‘the provisions of Directive 95/46, in so far as they govern the processing of personal data likely to infringe fundamental freedoms, in particular the right to privacy, must necessarily be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights, which, according to settled case law, form an integral part of the general principles of law whose observance the Court ensures.’
For an employer to publish the names and incomes of employees to a third party was an interference with the right to respect for private life, protected by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (para 74), but that it might be justified if it was both necessary for and appropriate to the aim of keeping salaries within reasonable limits, that being for the national courts to determine (para 90). But if the national legislation was incompatible with article 8, then it was also incapable of satisfying the requirements of proportionality in article 7(c) or (e) of Directive 95/46.

Judges:

GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

C-465/00, [2003] EUECJ C-465/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 95/46/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Rechnungshof v Osterreichischer Rundfunk and Others (Approximation Of Laws) ECJ 20-May-2003
ECJ Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the . .
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: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182713

Kaye v Robertson: CA 16 Mar 1990

A newspaper reporter and photographer invaded the (famouse) plaintiff’s hospital bedroom, purported to interview him and took photographs.
Held: The law of trespass provided no remedy because the plaintiff was not owner or occupier of the room and his body had not been touched. Publication of the interview was restrained by interlocutory injunction on the ground that it was arguably a malicious falsehood to represent that the plaintiff had consented to it. But no other remedy was available.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision can be made to protect the privacy of individuals.’
He explained the ingredients of the tort of malicious falsehood: ‘The essentials of this tort are that the defendant has published about the plaintiff words which are false, that they were published maliciously, and that special damage has followed as the direct and natural result of their publication.’
Bingham LJ said: ‘The problems of defining and limiting a tort of privacy are formidable but the present case strengthens my hope that the review now in progress may prove fruitful.’

Judges:

Glidewell, Bingham, Leggatt LJJ

Citations:

[1991] FSR 62, (1991) 19 IPR 147, [1990] EWCA Civ 21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mills v News Group Newspapers Limited ChD 4-Jun-2001
The applicant was in a relationship with Paul McCartney, and in view of attacks on other former Beatles, she sought to restrain publication of the address of a property she had contracted to buy. The newspaper had said it would not publish unless . .
Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Douglas 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 . .
Cited – Michael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183005

Cambridgeshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Feb 2013

ICO The complainant requested details of the advice provided by Cambridgeshire County Council’s Trading Standards department to a particular company in relation a dispute between the complainant and the company in question. Cambridgeshire County Council argued that the requested information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 42 of FOIA, the legal professional privilege exemption. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information does not attract legal professional privilege and therefore it is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a copy of the information he requested.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50457339

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.527928

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested copies of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s (‘the council’) annual IT health checks. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is not entitled to rely on the exemption for health and safety at section 38 of the FOIA as a basis to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50495010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.528812

Humberside Police (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jun 2011

ICO The complainant asked Humberside Police to provide him with any plans it held of the new Divisional Headquarters and Custody Suite on Clough Road, Hull. Humberside Police refused the request on the basis of section 21 of the Act because the relevant information was available on Hull City Council’s Planning portal. The complainant asked for an internal review of this decision because the portal did not provide him with access to the internal floor plans of the new custody suite. Humberside Police refused to provide him with these floor plans on the basis of sections 31(1)(a) to (c) of the Act. The complainant subsequently contacted the Commissioner in order to complain about the decision to withhold this information. The Commissioner has considered the circumstances of this case and has concluded that all of the requested information constitutes environmental information as defined by the EIR and therefore the request should have been dealt with under that access regime rather than under the Act. The Commissioner therefore requires Humberside Police to consider whether the internal floor plan of the new custody suite should be disclosed under the EIR, and if not, to issue a refusal notice compliant with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 2.1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50380045

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.530569