The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) the workplace email addresses of all of the University’s staff. The University confirmed that it held the information, but considered that it was exempt. It did not specify an exemption but implied that it was relying on section 21(1) [information reasonable accessible by other means] to all of the information. The complainant requested an internal review. The public authority appeared to withdraw its reliance on section 21 and confirmed that it was now relying upon sections 40 [personal data], 38 [prejudice to health and safety] and section 12 [costs limits]. The complainant referred this case to the Commissioner. He confirmed that he did not require email addresses where individuals had expressed concern about their personal safety. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority provided detailed arguments about why it believed that section 21(1) could be appropriately applied. The Commissioner has carefully considered this case and has found that in the circumstances of this case, section 21(1) has been applied appropriately to all of the information falling within the scope of the complaint. He has also determined that section 11 imposed no further obligations on the University. He has found procedural breaches of sections 17(1) and 17(1)(b) because the University failed to explicitly identify the exemption that it would later rely upon. However, he requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 11 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld
Citations:
[2011] UKICO FS50311065
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Information
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.530432