![[2024] UKUT 105 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Outcome
For the reasons that we have set out above, the Information Commissioner’s appeal is dismissed.
We conclude by thanking counsel for the considerable assistance that they provided to us and by observing that, having reviewed the relevant material, it appears to us that many of the points raised in this appeal could have been avoided if the FTT had provided a timely and better reasoned decision.
Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE
Chamber President
Nicholas Wikeley
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Zachary Citron
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
(Approved for issue on) 22 April 2024
- Heading
- THE HON. MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLIAMS DBE
- Hearing dates: 6-8 February 2024
- The structure of the Upper Tribunal’s decision
- Abbreviations
- Glossary
- The nature of Experian’s data processing
- The Information Commissioner’s Enforcement Notice
- Experian’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
- The Information Commissioner’s case before the First-tier Tribunal
- The hearing before the First-tier Tribunal
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The First-tier Tribunal’s findings
- The First-tier Tribunal’s conclusions
- The Substituted Enforcement Notice
- The Information Commissioner’s grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- The legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s “error of law” jurisdiction
- Adequacy of reasons
- Enforcement notices and appeals against them
- Recitals to the GDPR
- Proportionality
- The European Data Protection Board: decisions and guidelines
- Summary of relevant aspects of the transparency principle in the GDPR
- The parties’ overarching submissions
- Ground 1
- Experian’s submissions
- Alleged overarching errors: discussion and conclusions
- Alleged failure to address Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
- Alleged failure to identify the applicable standard of transparency
- The nature of the processing
- Relevance of the reasonable expectations of data subjects
- Alleged specific errors: discussion and conclusions
- Use of hyperlinks to the CIP
- Suggestion that people do not care about what happens to their data
- How the FTT addressed the reasonable expectations of data subjects
- Concluding observations on Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Experian’s submissions
- Alleged overarching error: discussion and conclusion
- Alleged specific errors: discussion and conclusions
- Article 14(5)(a) and whether the data subject already “has” the information
- The route from the third party suppliers to the CIP
- Article 14(5)(b)
- Concluding observations on Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Experian’s submissions
- Discussion and conclusions
- Ground 5
- Experian’s submissions
- Discussion and conclusions
- Conclusions