James Combes – Court Ruling (United Kingdom, 2026)

Court Ruling
DPA2 June 2026United Kingdom
final
Court Ruling

General GDPR enforcement action

This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A UK council was allowed to refuse a request for information about students' test scores due to privacy concerns. This decision is significant because it shows how personal data can be protected even when requests for information are made. Organizations must be careful about sharing data that could identify individuals.

What happened

The council denied a request for the raw scores and dates of birth of students who took a test, citing privacy risks.

Who was affected

The request involved candidates who sat the Kent Test, including their scores and dates of birth.

What the authority found

The Information Commissioner ruled that the council was justified in refusing the request to protect the personal data of the students.

Why this matters

This case underscores the need for organizations to balance transparency with privacy. Businesses should be aware of how sharing certain data can lead to privacy violations.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

Article 4(1) UK GDPR
Article 40(2) FOIA
Article 40(3A)(a)
Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR
Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR
Decision AuthorityFT
Source verified 9 June 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

On November 2024, a person (the requestee) made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to Kent County Council, the controller, concerning candidates who sat the Kent Test in September 2024. The requestee requested, for each candidate, the raw scores and standardised scores in English, Maths and Reasoning, together with the candidate’s date of birth. The request included anonymisation safeguards. In particular, the requestee asked the controller to exclude any results where fewer than five children shared the same date of birth and to remove candidates outside the normal cohort age range. The controller refused the request. It relied on section 40(2) FOIA, arguing that disclosure would involve the unlawful processing of third-party personal data. In particular, the controller considered that the combination of scores and dates of birth could allow the data subjects to be identified, including by parents or children who already knew some information about a candidate’s score or date of birth. The apellant requested an internal review. The controller upheld its refusal, stating that many combinations of raw scores, standardised scores and dates of birth were unique or occurred very infrequently. It concluded that disclosure would breach the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR. The apellant then complained to the Information Commissioner, the DPA. The DPA found that the controller was entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA. The DPA considered that the requested information could constitute personal data because, when combined with existing knowledge held by certain individuals, it could allow individual children to be identified. The DPA further found that, although there was a legitimate interest in transparency and oversight of the Kent Test, disclosure would be an unwarranted interference with the rights and freedoms of the data subjects. It therefore concluded that Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR could not be relied

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for James Combes in UK

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

2 June 2026

Authority

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. James Combes - United Kingdom (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: