The Circuit Court partly allowed an appeal by the Director of Corporate Enforcement over a Data Protection Commission decision concerning Paul Coyle’s request for access to personal data held by the Director. The court set aside the Commission’s decision of 24 December 2020, except for two findings about data that was publicly available and correspondence Coyle had exchanged with the Director.
Judge John O’Connor’s judgment, delivered on 1 April 2022, focused on whether the Commission followed fair procedures when it changed its conclusions between a draft decision and its final decision. The appeal was under section 26 of the Data Protection Act 1988, as amended. The court said this was not a full rehearing: the Director had to show, on the balance of probabilities, a serious and significant error in the decision-making process.
Coyle, a former director of Decobake Limited, requested documents containing his name, address and PPS number in March 2018. The Director refused access. Coyle complained to the Commission, which issued a draft decision in November 2020. That draft indicated the Director could withhold personal data in liquidators’ reports, complaints and internal correspondence, while requiring access to data in certain publicly available material, correspondence and legal pleadings.
After the Director made further submissions, the Commission’s final decision changed some of those views. It found the Director could not rely on section 5(1)(d) to withhold personal data in liquidators’ reports, and could withhold the source of data in complaints and internal correspondence, but not other personal data on that basis.
The Commission argued it had given both parties an opportunity to be heard and was not bound by its preliminary views. The Director argued that the draft had led it to believe the Commission accepted its position on key exemptions, and that it had no chance to address the different analysis in the final decision.
The court held that a decision-maker may revisit preliminary conclusions, but must provide an adequate opportunity to address the issues as they develop. In this case, the significant change and its consequences for the Director’s statutory role outweighed the opportunity it had received to make submissions. The court concluded the Director had not had a sufficient opportunity to address the combined issues and how the exemptions might interact.
The appeal was allowed in part on procedural fairness grounds. The Commission’s decision was set aside except insofar as it found the Director could not withhold Coyle’s personal data merely because it was publicly available, or because he might already have a copy of correspondence exchanged with the Director. The judgment did not substitute a new decision on the remaining access issues; those parts of the Commission’s decision were set aside.