FS50069921: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50069921 | |dn_ref=FS50069921 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=5 July 2006 | ||
|dn_pa=Cardiff University | |dn_pa=Cardiff University | ||
|dn_summary=On 7 January 2005 the complainant requested details of money spent by the university obtaining legal advice in relation to two disciplinary cases. The university confirmed that the information was held, but did not release it citing s.42 (legal professional privilege) and later s.41 (information provided in confidence). The complainant requested a review of the decision, and following this was provided with basic details of expenditure in one of the two cases. Having investigated the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the s.42 exemption is engaged, and that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemption. However, he also found that the information subsequently provided following the review was not held at the time of the initial request, and so the University failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) by misleadingly suggesting they held information on both cases. Finally, as section 42 was engaged section 41 was not considered further for the purposes of the Decision Notice. The Infomation Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal. | |dn_summary=On 7 January 2005 the complainant requested details of money spent by the university obtaining legal advice in relation to two disciplinary cases. The university confirmed that the information was held, but did not release it citing s.42 (legal professional privilege) and later s.41 (information provided in confidence). The complainant requested a review of the decision, and following this was provided with basic details of expenditure in one of the two cases. Having investigated the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the s.42 exemption is engaged, and that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemption. However, he also found that the information subsequently provided following the review was not held at the time of the initial request, and so the University failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) by misleadingly suggesting they held information on both cases. Finally, as section 42 was engaged section 41 was not considered further for the purposes of the Decision Notice. The Infomation Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 42 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 41 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:23, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50069921
- Date: 5 July 2006
- Public Authority: Cardiff University
- Summary: On 7 January 2005 the complainant requested details of money spent by the university obtaining legal advice in relation to two disciplinary cases. The university confirmed that the information was held, but did not release it citing s.42 (legal professional privilege) and later s.41 (information provided in confidence). The complainant requested a review of the decision, and following this was provided with basic details of expenditure in one of the two cases. Having investigated the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the s.42 exemption is engaged, and that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemption. However, he also found that the information subsequently provided following the review was not held at the time of the initial request, and so the University failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) by misleadingly suggesting they held information on both cases. Finally, as section 42 was engaged section 41 was not considered further for the purposes of the Decision Notice. The Infomation Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
