![[2023] UKUT 221 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
and that EHRC had not carried out such an exercise for its Birmingham office, but could in theory do so, as it held the raw data to produce the statistics
and that EHRC had not carried out such an exercise for its Birmingham office, but could in theory do so, as it held the raw data to produce the statistics.
Paragraph 31 of the IC decision notice stated that IC noted that the statistics would, at least to some extent, mask the raw data. However, IC considered that, because of the numbers of employees involved, the statistics could be unravelled sufficiently to reveal the raw data.
Paragraph 32 of the IC decision notice stated that the Gender Pay Regulations required the publications of six distinct statistics; and that IC considered that a person who was aware of the gender split in the Birmingham office would be able to combine that information with the pay band information disclosed by EHRC, to work out at least some of the individual salaries. Paragraph 33 explained how a median from a data set is found; based on this, paragraph 34 stated that if the Birmingham office had (for example) five female and three male employees, the median salary of both males and females would be an actual salary of a male and female employee.
Paragraph 35 of the IC decision notice stated that IC was not convinced that the statistical manipulation proposed by Ms Powell would be sufficient to mask the underlying data; IC therefore consider there to be a risk that individuals could be identified and that the information is therefore personal data
- Heading
- The appeal is allowed
- Directions
- REASONS FOR THE DECISION
- The exemption in s40(2), first condition
- The above is set out at s40(3A)
- Summary of FTT’s reasoning as regards the requested information being personal data
- and that EHRC had not carried out such an exercise for its Birmingham office, but could in theory do so, as it held the raw data to produce the statistics
- Summary of FTT’s reasoning as regards s16 (duty to provide advice and assistance)
- Summary of FTT decision’s reasoning when considering whether processing (what it found to be) personal data was necessary for the purposes of the “legitimate interests” pursued by Ms Powell
- The grounds on which permission to appeal was given
- Dicta on adequacy of reasons
- Upper Tribunal’s consideration of ground a
- IC’s submissions on ground a
- Conclusions