FS50085374: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (XML import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50085374 | |dn_ref=FS50085374 | ||
|dn_date=30 | |dn_date=30 August 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=Department for Culture, Media and Sport | |dn_pa=Department for Culture, Media and Sport | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant asked the public authority for information about meetings with the Chairman of the BBC and related expenses. The public authority referred part of the request to the BBC and stated that it did not have the information covered by the remainder. On review it identified an email which it held but refused disclosure on the grounds of section 35(1)(a) or, ‘in the alternative’, section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that section 35 was not engaged, but that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was. He went on to conclude that the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption in relation to the email. Accordingly, the Commissioner decided that the public authority was not in breach of section 1(1) of the Act. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs50085374.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs50085374.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 35 | |dnd_section=FOI 35 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 36 | |dnd_section=FOI 36 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:23, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50085374
- Date: 30 August 2007
- Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
- Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about meetings with the Chairman of the BBC and related expenses. The public authority referred part of the request to the BBC and stated that it did not have the information covered by the remainder. On review it identified an email which it held but refused disclosure on the grounds of section 35(1)(a) or, ‘in the alternative’, section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that section 35 was not engaged, but that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was. He went on to conclude that the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption in relation to the email. Accordingly, the Commissioner decided that the public authority was not in breach of section 1(1) of the Act.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
