FS50146950: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50146950.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50146950.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 23:30, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50146950
  • Date: 13 June 2007
  • Public Authority: Monitor
  • Summary: The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between Monitor and two other public authorities, namely Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust and the South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority for the twelve months prior to February 2005. The complainant also asked for minutes of any meetings involving Monitor and the two other public authorities. During this period Monitor was considering Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust’s application to become a foundation hospital trust. The public authority provided the complainant with several documents but redacted parts of a number of these documents on the basis of section 40 and 41. Having reviewed the redacted information the Commissioner is satisfied that section 41 has been applied correctly in regard to the majority of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner also decided that a small portion of the redacted information was not exempt by either section 40 or 41, but this information has now been communicated to the complainant.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]