FS50118129: 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=FS50118129 | |dn_ref=FS50118129 | ||
|dn_date=24 | |dn_date=24 July 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=Financial Services Authority | |dn_pa=Financial Services Authority | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information related to the investigation of possible insider trading leading up to September 11 2001. The FSA withheld the information under section 44 and section 12. The Commissioner investigated the application of the two exemptions and found that section 44 was engaged and upheld the FSA’s assertion that to provide some of the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner found that in failing to inform the complainant of its reliance on section 12 in the refusal notice the FSA was in breach of section 17 of the Act. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs50118129.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs50118129.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 12 | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 44 | |dnd_section=FOI 44 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:25, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50118129
- Date: 24 July 2007
- Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
- Summary: The complainant requested information related to the investigation of possible insider trading leading up to September 11 2001. The FSA withheld the information under section 44 and section 12. The Commissioner investigated the application of the two exemptions and found that section 44 was engaged and upheld the FSA’s assertion that to provide some of the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner found that in failing to inform the complainant of its reliance on section 12 in the refusal notice the FSA was in breach of section 17 of the Act.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3
