Dr Yeong-Ah Soh v The Information Commissioner and Imperial College London
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Stockman |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKUT 0249 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Date | 10 March 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Information rights,Information rights - Freedom of information - public authority response,Information rights - Freedom of information - right of access,Stockman,O |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
[2016] UKUT 0249 (AAC)
Dr Yeong-Ah Soh v Information Commissioner and Imperial College London
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. GIA/116/2014
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Decision
This is an appeal by the information requester, brought with my permission, against the
decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) made on 10 October 2013. The question which I
have to decide is whether the decision of the FTT involved the making of an error on a point
of law.
For the reasons I give below, I decide that the decision of the FTT has involved the making
of an error of law. I set aside the decision of the FTT under section 12(2)(b)(i) of the
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and remit the case to the FTT with directions
for its reconsideration.
Reasons
Background
1. Dr S (“the appellant”) was employed by Imperial College London (“the second
respondent”) as a lecturer on a probationary basis. A senior colleague acted as her
academic adviser until August 2010. From then, a second colleague, Dr M, took
responsibility for acting as the appellant’s academic adviser. In February 2011 and May
2011 respectively, the appellant brought grievance proceedings against each of the
academic advisers. As part of the grievance the appellant complained that students were
being “spoon-fed” and alleged that Dr M gave students some of the examination questions
before the exams. The appellant repeated the allegations at her final Probation Review in
May 2011. An investigation into the allegations, led by the Head of a different Department,
was conducted by the second respondent. The claims were assessed as being without
foundation in November 2011.
2. Arising from the making of allegations of professional misconduct against Dr M and from
her alleged conduct in the course of the investigation, the appellant was subjected to
disciplinary proceedings by the second respondent in December 2011. She was dismissed
on 11 January 2012. She initiated an internal appeal process. Against this background, on
23 January 2012 the appellant wrote to the second respondent and requested information
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) in the following terms:
“I would like a copy of all the 1st year Progress Tests, and exams and materials for
[specified] courses offered at [a specified] Department, during the period 2002-2012,
with the individual instructors responsible for the different parts of exams and tutorials
mentioned on the documents”.
3. She wrote again on 31 January 2012 to make further requests in the following terms:
“I would like in addition the lecture notes and revision lectures by [Dr M] for
[specified] courses offered during the period 2009-2012”.
and
[2016] UKUT 0249 (AAC)
Dr Yeong-Ah Soh v Information Commissioner and Imperial College London
2
“In addition, I would like a table of the SOLE [student online evaluation] scores of all
the instructors at the [specified] Department from 2002-2012. If the identity of the
individuals needs to be protected, then you can refer to a particular individual with a
symbol, but keep the same symbol for the same individual for the SOLE score
information over all the years requested”.
4. On 20 February 2012, the second respondent provided some of the information requested
on 23 January 2012 but refused disclosure of the remainder, claiming that the material was
exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the FOIA. On 21 February 2012 the appellant
requested an internal review of the refusal.
5. On 28 February 2012, the second respondent refused to comply with the requests of 31
January 2012, claiming exemption to the first part under section 43 of the FOIA and
exemption for the second part on the basis that the SOLE scores were personal data under
section 40(2). On 28 February 2012 the appellant extended her request for review to include
the further refusal. On 14 March 2012 the second respondent upheld its decision to refuse to
provide the information, relying on exemptions under sections 43(2) and 40(2) of the FOIA.
6. On 10 April 2012 the appellant commenced proceedings against the second respondent
in the Employment Tribunal (“the ET”), claiming unfair dismissal, race/sex discrimination,
and detriment for public interest disclosure.
7. The appellant complained to the Information Commissioner (“the first respondent”) about
the refusal of the second respondent to provide the requested information. She indicated
that the third element could be dropped from the complaint (the SOLE scores). She further
narrowed the scope of the information she was seeking to:
“Copies of all first year progress tests during the period 2002-2012, with the
individual instructors responsible for the different parts of the progress tests
mentioned on the documents”.
and
“Copies of the tutorials (rather than all material) for the [specified] courses offered by
Dr M (not all instructors), during the period 2009-2012 (not 2002-2012)”.
8. By this, she had excluded from the request copies of all exams and materials from 2002-
2012, restricted the request to tutorial material prepared by Dr M, and omitted from the
request all tutorial material prior to 2009.
9. Subsequently, the second respondent agreed to disclosure of all first year progress tests
during the period 2009-2012, indicating that progress tests were only introduced in 2009.
The second respondent further maintained that it did not record the names of the individual
instructors responsible for the different parts of the progress tests. The appellant indicated
that she did not require the first respondent to form a view on that issue.
10. The requested information at issue in the complaint to the first respondent therefore had
narrowed to:
“Copies of the lecture notes and revision lectures by Dr M for the [specified] courses
offered during the period 2009-2012”.
To continue reading
Request your trial