[2025] UKUT 308 (AAC)

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 separately from the test in condition (2) (Farrand v Information Commissioner [2014] UKUT 310 (AAC)).

The Appellant is wrong to suggest that the First-tier Tribunal failed to take the Statutory Guidance into account (see paragraph 172 of its reasons which quoted the Statutory Guidance’s exhortation that schools should make it clear to parents “who is responsible” for teaching sex education). Moreover, statutory guidance is not legislation and may be departed from for good reason.

The Appellant criticises the First-tier Tribunal’s finding that the statutory framework regulating who may work in schools is a sufficient safeguard. However, it was for her to make good, before the Tribunal, the contention that the framework was insufficient.

The First-tier Tribunal rightly addressed whether the Appellant was ‘unable’ to make a complaint (paragraph 176). Even if knowledge of names would make it easier to make a complaint (not conceded), it does not follow that such knowledge is ‘reasonably necessary’ to meet the Appellant’s legitimate interest of complaining effectively. The Appellant failed to show that her right to make a complaint was rendered ineffective or made significantly more difficult by non-disclosure of identities. The same applies to the argument that knowledge of SoSE facilitators’ names was reasonably necessary to achieve her legitimate aim of discussing sex education with her daughter.