[2024] UKUT 245 (AAC)

Between:

SHIBU GANGADHARAN

Appellant

- v -

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: In person

Respondent: Leo Davidson (counsel)

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights)

Tribunal Case No: EA/2023/0175

Tribunal Venue: On the papers

Decision Date: 31 October 2023

SUMMARY OF DECISION

Information Rights (93)

The Tribunal erred in law in failing to deal with part of the appellant’s request for information in the decision. This part of the appeal was remitted for rehearing before the same Tribunal.

The Tribunal did not err in law in its approach to section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). It had been open to it to conclude (in respect of the parts of the appellant’s request that it dealt with) that disclosure of the information requested by the appellant was not necessary to the pursuit of a legitimate interest for the purpose of Article 6(1)(f) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) so that disclosure of the information would constitute a breach of the data protection principles.

Obiter:- The Upper Tribunal doubted whether the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in DB v General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1497, [2019] 1 WLR 4044 about the approach to the balancing of interests under section 7(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act 1998 could be read across to section 40(2) of the FOIA and Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION