![[2025] UKUT 308 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Introduction
Introduction
Terminology and meaning of certain references
In these reasons:
“Commissioner” means The Information Commissioner (1st Respondent);
“EA 1996” means the Education Act 1996;
“EA 2002” means the Education Act 2002;
“FOIA” means theFreedom of Information Act 2000;
“relevant sex education” means sex education in respect of which a parent has the right under section 405(1) or (3) EA 1996 to request that a pupil be excused attendance in whole or in part (in these reasons, this right is often referred to as the right of withdrawal although the right under section 405(3) is not absolute: see paragraph 105 below);
“RSE” means relationships and sex education;
“the School” means Haberdasher’s Hatcham College which is a secondary school with academy status and a member of the Trust;
“the Session” means a presentation about consent given by SoSE facilitators to 15/16 year old pupils at the School on 20 September 2021;
“the Slides” means Powerpoint slides displayed to pupils at the Session and which the Appellant sought in her FOIA request for information from the School. In these reasons, unless the context otherwise requires, a reference to ‘the Slides’ includes the information within them;
“Statutory Guidance” means guidance issued in September 2021 by the Secretary of State for Education named Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education;
“statutory sex and relationships education” means education provided under section 80(1)(d) EA 2002;
“the Trust” means Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation Trust, which is a multi-academy trust;
“SoSE” means the School of Sexuality Education (2nd Respondent). SoSE is a registered charity but not a school within the meaning of the Education Acts;
“UK GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as it forms part of the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Neither the School, being an academy, nor the Trust, being a multi-academy trust, is a maintained school. I have not been provided with a copy of the Trust’s funding agreement with the Department for Education nor, if different, the School’s. However, this case has been argued on the basis that the School was subject to obligations which mirror the statutory obligations imposed on maintained schools and the governing bodies of maintained schools. These reasons should be read accordingly.
The parties accept that the Trust was the proprietor of an Academy so that, in respect of information held for the purposes of its functions under Academy arrangements, it was a public authority for the purposes of FOIA (see section 3(1)(a)(i) of, and paragraph 52A of Schedule 1 to, FOIA). In these reasons, a reference to a duty owed by the School under FOIA is to be read as a duty owed by the Trust.
Unless otherwise indicated, a reference in these reasons to a numbered paragraph is to a paragraph within the reasons given by the First-tier Tribunal for its decision.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Secretary of State for Education’s involvement in these proceedings
- Factual background
- Appellant’s interaction with the School / Trust before she made her FOIA request
- Informing Parents
- Discussions between the School / Trust and SoSE about access to the Slides
- Appellant’s concerns about, and interaction with, SoSE
- Evidence about the potential determent for SoSE were the Slides to be disclosed
- The outcome of the Appellant’s complaint about the School
- The School of Sexuality Education
- Failure to be transparent about lessons taught to children
- The Appellant’s FOIA request
- identities of SoSE staff were withheld under section 40 FOIA (personal information)
- The Information Commissioner’s decision
- The Commissioner’s decision notice (ref. IC-171936-C9H8)
- was not trivial and had the necessary quality of confidence
- any reasonable person, standing in the shoes of the Trust, should have realised attracted an obligation of confidence
- First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The Appellant’s arguments
- the Commissioner erred in holding that the Slides could be withheld in reliance upon s.41 of the FOIA the Commissioner erred in holding that the identities of SoSE’s facilitators were exempt as personal data; and
- Whether section 405 of EA 1996 carries an implied obligation to provide parents with sex education teaching materials: Ground 1
- The law of confidence
- Disclosing identities of SoSE facilitators
- Observations on the Appellant’s case before the First-tier Tribunal
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- Section 41 FOIA / law of confidence: disclosure of the Slides
- Section 40 FOIA: disclosure of identities of SoSE’s facilitators
- the legitimate interest was not simply ‘knowing who is teaching her child sex education’ (paragraph 168)
- in relation to the Appellant’s particular legitimate interests
- Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
- if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”
- Information accessible by other means
- Personal information
- Information is exempt information if—
- “First, the information itself, in the words of Lord Greene, M.R. in [ Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd. (1948) 65 R.P.C. 203] on page 215, must “have the necessary quality
- “Thirdly, there must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it”
- Commissioner’s guidance about section 41 of FOIA
- Education
- sex education comprised in the National Curriculum
- Statutory Guidance
- “typical policies are likely to include sections covering…
- subjects. Schools should ensure that parents know what will be taught and when, and
- of Relationships Education and RSE. Good communication and opportunities for parents
- sex education delivered as part of statutory RSE. Before granting any such request it
- or visiting organisation’s credentials. Schools should also ensure that the teaching
- the second conditions the way in which the State provides education
- Copyright
- Grounds of appeal and arguments
- Ground 1 – whether section 405 EA 1996 imposes an implied obligations to provide information
- Appellant
- The Commissioner
- Ground 2 – Tribunal’s assessment of the law of confidence, and application of section 41 of FOIA
- Appellant: principles of the law of confidentiality
- disclosure of the information in question would constitute a breach of confidence, contrary to the principles expounded in Coco v Clark ; and
- UKUT 313 (AAC) at [38]. For this purpose, the test is one of proportionality: HRH The Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Limited [2008] Ch 57 at [67] and [69])
- the information must be inaccessible (Arnold LJ in The Racing Partnership Ltd & Ors v Sports Information Services Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1300 , [2021] Ch. 233 at [48]), and “the claimant…must demonstrate
- the information must be worthy of confidentiality by virtue of a quality central to it, which is of particular relevance where component parts, but not the information itself, may be in the public dom
- the industry/sphere in which the parties operate may be relevant because “whether information should be treated as confidential will be judged in the light of the usage and practices of the particular
- Appellant: First-tier Tribunal’s application of the law
- SoSE published a book in September 2021 Sex Ed: An Inclusive Teenage Guide to Sex and Relationships . The book was in the public domain at the date of the Appellant’s FOIA request and contained a chap
- The Commissioner
- assuming the Appellant is correct that the Slides drew on a variety of sources, and included information replicated in the public domain, it does not follow that the Slides did not merit protection un
- the argument that the First-tier Tribunal (and previously the Commissioner) confused confidentiality and copyright is misplaced. The law of confidence often looks to the originality of information in
- SoSE
- Appellant
- Commissioner
- SoSE
- Appellant
- Commissioner
- Ground 5
- Appellant
- Commissioner
- Ground 6
- Appellant
- failed to take into account the primacy of parental rights to determine what education their child receives
- expectations of privacy) against the public interest in disclosure (see AB v A Chief Constable [2014] EWHC 1965 (QB) at [75]). A question to be asked is whether an individual had a reasonable expectat
- is the data controller, or third parties to whom data is disclosed, pursuing a legitimate interest?
- is the processing unwarranted because the legitimate interests are outweighed by the rights and freedoms of the data subject? The Commissioner submits that this is a balancing exercise to be applied s
- SoSE
- Proceedings before the Upper Tribunal
- Additional evidence
- Hearing
- The Upper Tribunal’s analysis
- Ground 1
- The First-tier Tribunal’s analysis
- Section 405 EA 1996 : Upper Tribunal’s analysis
- Ground 2
- The Appellant’s case on the law of confidence before the First-tier Tribunal
- Whether disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence: matters of fact and law
- Determination of Ground 2: analysis
- the Appellant criticises the Tribunal for failing properly to consider whether the first condition in Coco v Clark was met (information must have the necessary quality of confidence), and simply assum
- the Appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that disclosure of the information within the Slides at the Session destroyed any confidentiality they might previously have possessed. The
- Ground 2: conclusion
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- the balance of interests fell plainly in favour of disclosing identities of the SoSE facilitators (notice of appeal)
- Conclusions