Tag: Information

Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc: QBD 16 May 2018

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1123 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket Plc QBD 1-Dec-2017
The defendant employer had had confidential information of many of its staff taken and disclosed by a rogue employee. The employees now sought compensation. The main issue was whether the company was directly or vicariously liable for the tort.
Cited – O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616161

Robertson and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 21 Dec 2010

Mr Neil D Robertson (Mr Robertson) requested from the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) a copy of the Orderly Room Procedures and Guidance (ORPG). The SPS failed to reply to this request, and Mr Robertson asked for a review of this decision. The SPS responded to this request and advised Mr Robertson that the ORPG was already accessible to him via the prison library and therefore it was not required to provide him with a copy. Mr Robertson remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the SPS confirmed that it considered the ORPG to be exempt from disclosure in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA, the Commissioner found that the SPS had partially failed to deal with Mr Robertson’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the SPS was entitled to withhold the requested document in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA. However, the Commissioner, found that the SPS failed to respond to Mr Robertson’s request for information within the timescale laid down by section 10(1) FOISA. He did not require the SPS to take any action in response to this failure.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 214 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.433938

Two Counties Trust Ltd (Education): ICO 27 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested information about special payments made by the Two Counties Trust (‘the Trust’) to former employees of the Manor Academy. The Trust released some information and withheld some under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is correct to withhold the disputed information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. She also finds that the Trust provided adequate advice and assistance to the complainant and therefore did not breach section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50700588

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.617684

Surrey County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 23 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested average care package cost information regarding Leonard Cheshire Disability (‘LCD’). Surrey County Council (the ‘Council’) provided some detail but refused to provide much of the information citing section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. Following correspondence with the Commissioner, the Council disclosed the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) as its basis for withholding the requested information. In failing to provide the information within 20 working days following the request, the Council contravened the requirements of section 1 and section 10 of the Act. Given that the Council has already disclosed the information, no steps are required.
FOI 43: Upheld FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50635730

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.583815

Surrey County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2010

The complainant requested the number of vehicles photographed by a specified speed camera and information on the amount of time that this camera is active. The public authority refused the request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) and 31(1)(b) (prejudice to the apprehension or prosecution of offenders) on the grounds that disclosure of the information requested by the complainant would be likely to lead to vandalism of the speed camera specified in the request. The Commissioner finds that these exemptions are not engaged and the public authority is required to disclose the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50288338

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.531689

Highways England (Central Government): ICO 27 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested information on the rates a particular contractor charges Highways England (HE) for its staff, known as Asset Incident Watchmen (AIW), to attend incidents on the routes it is responsible for. HE have refused the request under section 43(2) of the FOIA on the basis that disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of both itself and the contractor. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged and therefore by failing to communicate the requested information HE has breached section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information on the AIW hourly rates for each of the four areas managed by Kier for the period covered by the request.
FOI 43: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50664292

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.617596

Open University (Education): ICO 27 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested the names of all external examiners and funding bodies for the PhDs of two members of the science faculty at the Open University. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Open University has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50695316

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.617656

Lincolnshire County Council (Local Government): ICO 27 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested the postcodes of children offered a place at a school. Lincolnshire County Council provided partial postcode information, but withheld full postcodes on the basis of the exemption for third party personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire County Council has correctly applied the exemption. The council is not required to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50704419

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.617614

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 17 Apr 2018

The complainant has requested recorded information on how the Council handles formal complaints that involve the harm of a vulnerable adult. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wigan Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance) by failing to provide the complainant with all relevant information (in this case a procedure) within 20 working days. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has not breached section 1(1)(a) or 1(1)(b) of the FOIA because it confirmed it held the information and provided a working website link to some of it within 20 working days, and subsequently provided a further relevant document by the time the internal review was completed. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1(1)(a): Complaint not upheld FOI 1(1)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50687983

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.617769

West Midlands Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 17 Apr 2018

The complainant requested information relating to an historic police investigation and trial. West Midlands Police (WMP) refused the request on the grounds that it imposed a grossly oppressive burden and therefore was vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and so section 14(1) was relied on incorrectly. WMP is now required to issue a fresh response to the request.
FOI 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50713120

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.617767

Breckland Council (Local Government): ICO 17 Apr 2018

The complainant has requested copies of all comments made on a planning application. Breckland Council (the council) referred the complainant to its planning website for the comments held. The complainant was not satisfied with the information provided as he stated some comments had been removed and he wanted copies of these also. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the deleted comments and has provided the complainant with the information it does hold. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0694551

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.617704

Public Health England (Health): ICO 17 Apr 2018

The complainant has requested information about the species of Borrelia used to create the VISE component of the Lyme Immunoblot test. Public Health England stated that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities Public Health England do not hold the stated information. The Commissioner does not require Public Health England to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50719621

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.617751

Lewannick Parish Council (Local Government): ICO 17 Apr 2018

The complainant has requested information with regards to a contract. Lewannick Parish Council provided information it held but the complainant considered the council would hold further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50701576

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.617740

Ministerio Fiscal – C-207/16: ECJ 3 May 2018

Electronic Communications – Processing of Personal Data – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications – Processing of personal data – Right to private life and right to protection of personal data – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 1 and Article 15(1) – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) – Data collected in the context of the provision of electronic communications services – Request for access by a police authority for the purposes of a criminal investigation – Principle of proportionality – Concept of ‘serious crime’ capable of justifying an interference with fundamental rights – Criteria of seriousness – Penalty incurred – Minimum threshold

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:300, [2018] EUECJ C-207/16 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Human Rights, Information

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609515

Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission: ECFI 23 Apr 2018

ECJ Provisions Governing The Institutions – Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning a change in the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont building related to the limitation of the display to French and English only English – Partial refusal of access – Commission statement concerning the non-existence of documents – Presumption of lawfulness – Error in law – Obligation to state reasons

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:207, [2018] EUECJ T-468/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609330

Espirito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB: ECFI 26 Apr 2018

Access To Documents – Banco Espirito Santo Sa – Implied Refusal To Grant Access – Judgment – Access to documents – Decision 2004/258/EC – Documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espirito Santo SA – Implied refusal to grant access – Express refusal to grant access – Partial refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies – Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State – Exception relating to the stability of the financial system in the European Union or in a Member State – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – Exception relating to opinions intended for internal use – Obligation to state reasons

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:234, [2018] EUECJ T-251/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609306

Brevan Howard Asset Management Llp v Reuters Ltd and Another: CA 7 Jul 2017

Application for an injunction to restrain publication in the media of confidential business information pending trial.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton, MR, Longmore, Sharp LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 950

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Media, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.588987

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 2 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested the council to disclose the Pre-planning advice it gave to her neighbour in October 2014, any case notes that were taken by the planning officer during their visit to the property and photographs taken. The council released a redacted version of the Pre-planning advice it holds, citing regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR for the sections it wished to withhold. It confirmed that it does not hold any case notes relating to the officer’s visit but disclosed all photographs taken to the complainant. The Commissioner’s investigation focussed on the redacted version of the Pre-planning advice and although regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR was applied by the council, the Commissioner considered the withheld information is third party personal data and regulation 13 of the EIR was more appropriate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR and therefore no further action is required in this case. She has however recorded a breach of regulation 11 of the EIR, as the council failed to carry out an internal review in 40 working days.
EIR 11: Upheld EIR 13: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0616171

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.568521

Cheshire West and Chester Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Aug 2010

ICO The complainant made a request for recorded information about the reasons why a road had not been adopted by the public authority. The public authority provided an explanation and the complainant requested an internal review. The public authority refused to conduct an internal review, although stated that its position remained the same. The Commissioner has considered this case carefully. He has determined that the information, where held, is environmental information and that this case should be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). He found that the public authority did hold one piece of information and has ensured that this has now been provided to the complainant. He has determined that the public authority holds no further relevant recorded information in this case that needs to be provided under Regulation 5(1). However, he finds that the Council have contravened Regulation 5(1) (in failing to provide the single email that it did hold until the Commissioner-andtrade;s investigation), Regulation 5(2) (in failing to provide email in twenty working days), and Regulation 11 (in refusing to conduct an internal review.) He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case as the single piece of information that is relevant to the request has now been provided.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50285682

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.531580

Cheshire West and Chester Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Aug 2010

ICO The complainant submitted a request to Cheshire West and Chester Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in Chester. The complainant specified that he wished to view the records in person. The Council agreed to provide the information requested but only on the provision of a set fee. The Commissioner-andtrade;s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 5(1) as it failed to make information available on request, and 5(2) as it failed to make it available within the statutory time for compliance. The Council breached regulation 6(1) by failing to comply with the complainant-andtrade;s request to make information available in a particular format. The Council has also breached regulation 8(2)(b) by attempting to impose a charge to allow the complainant to inspect information. In addition, the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to provide the outcome of its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to make the requested information available for the complainant to inspect within 35 days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 8 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0276228

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.531579

Regina v Chief Constables of C and D, Ex Parte A: QBD 7 Nov 2000

The passing of sensitive personal information between one police force and another was not a decision subject to obligations which made it subject to judicial review. Information falling short of convictions could properly be passed, and information passed between police forces rather than between police forces and other authorities was subject to lesser controls. There was no breach of the Data Protection Acts. With regard to the earlier Act the data was processed manually, and for both, the information passed was for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime. Disclosures outside the police force were required to pass the test of being to satisfy a pressing need.

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984, Data Protection Act 1998

Police, Judicial Review, Information

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85184