FS50070234: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
 
(XML import)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50070234
|dn_ref=FS50070234
|dn_date=24/08/2006
|dn_date=24/08/2006
|dn_pa=Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust
|dn_pa=Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust
|dn_summary=The complainant asked Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust for a copy of a report of an investigation into the financial affairs of its predecessor, Lifecare NHS Trust. The trust withheld the report, citing the exemptions in sections 31, 41 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that the trust had correctly applied section 41 to the information in the report relating to allegations about individuals against whom charges were dropped or relating to individuals who gave evidence to the report�s authors, the release of which would be an actionable breach of confidence. However, the Commissioner considered that the trust had not correctly applied sections 31 and 42 to the remaining information in the report, which should be released to the complainant.
|dn_summary=’s authors, the release of which would be an actionable breach of confidence. However, the Commissioner considered that the trust had not correctly applied sections 31 and 42 to the remaining information in the report, which should be released to the complainant.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/decision_notice_70234.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/decision_notice_70234.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision
|1=FOI 42
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|2=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 31
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 42
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}

Revision as of 20:25, 3 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50070234
  • Date: 24/08/2006
  • Public Authority: Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust
  • Summary: ’s authors, the release of which would be an actionable breach of confidence. However, the Commissioner considered that the trust had not correctly applied sections 31 and 42 to the remaining information in the report, which should be released to the complainant.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]