FS50092946: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(XML import)
(CSV import)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50092946
|dn_ref=FS50092946
|dn_date=07/02/2007
|dn_date=7 February 2007
|dn_pa=Canterbury City Council
|dn_pa=Canterbury City Council
|dn_summary=iance and section 1(1)(a) in relation to specific financial details. It has also misapplied section 42 (legal professional privilege) to some information.
|dn_summary=The complainant made a request for all the information held by specific departments of the public authority that contained a reference to his companies. The public authority supplied some information; however the complainant believed that the public authority held further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with section 1(1)(b) and section 12 as it acted reasonably in conducting proper searches and the cost of retrieving electronic information would exceed the appropriate limit. However, the public authority has breached section 10; time for compliance and section 1(1)(a) in relation to specific financial details. It has also misapplied section 42 (legal professional privilege) to some information.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50092946.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50092946.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision1
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision2
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision3
|dnd_section=FOI 12
|dnd_section=FOI 12
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision4
|dnd_section=FOI 21
|dnd_section=FOI 21
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision5
|dnd_section=FOI 42
|dnd_section=FOI 42
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}

Revision as of 21:24, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50092946
  • Date: 7 February 2007
  • Public Authority: Canterbury City Council
  • Summary: The complainant made a request for all the information held by specific departments of the public authority that contained a reference to his companies. The public authority supplied some information; however the complainant believed that the public authority held further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with section 1(1)(b) and section 12 as it acted reasonably in conducting proper searches and the cost of retrieving electronic information would exceed the appropriate limit. However, the public authority has breached section 10; time for compliance and section 1(1)(a) in relation to specific financial details. It has also misapplied section 42 (legal professional privilege) to some information.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4 Template:DNDecision5