FS50070183: 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") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50070183 | |dn_ref=FS50070183 | ||
|dn_date=15 | |dn_date=15 December 2005 | ||
|dn_pa=Richmondshire District Council | |dn_pa=Richmondshire District Council | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested details of the legal opinion on which the Council based its policy of noise control relating Croft motor racing circuit, and copies of correspondence between the Council and counsel relating to that advice. The Council refused to release the advice citing the exemption provided by section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has agreed that section 42(1) was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested details of the legal opinion on which the Council based its policy of noise control relating Croft motor racing circuit, and copies of correspondence between the Council and counsel relating to that advice. The Council refused to release the advice citing the exemption provided by section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has agreed that section 42(1) was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 42 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:23, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50070183
- Date: 15 December 2005
- Public Authority: Richmondshire District Council
- Summary: The complainant requested details of the legal opinion on which the Council based its policy of noise control relating Croft motor racing circuit, and copies of correspondence between the Council and counsel relating to that advice. The Council refused to release the advice citing the exemption provided by section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has agreed that section 42(1) was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
