FS50150341: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision") |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50150341 | |dn_ref=FS50150341 | ||
|dn_date=15 | |dn_date=15 December 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service | |dn_pa=Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested copies of all papers listed as having been discussed at the 8 September 2006 board meeting of the public authority. The public authority refused the request, with the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) cited. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) were applied correctly. However, the Commissioner also finds that the exemption provided by section 44(1)(a) is not engaged and that the public authority breached section 17(1)(b) in failing to cite section 40(2) at the refusal notice or internal review stage despite later relying on this when corresponding with the Commissioner. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested copies of all papers listed as having been discussed at the 8 September 2006 board meeting of the public authority. The public authority refused the request, with the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) cited. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) were applied correctly. However, the Commissioner also finds that the exemption provided by section 44(1)(a) is not engaged and that the public authority breached section 17(1)(b) in failing to cite section 40(2) at the refusal notice or internal review stage despite later relying on this when corresponding with the Commissioner. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 36 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 44 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:31, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50150341
- Date: 15 December 2008
- Public Authority: Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
- Summary: The complainant requested copies of all papers listed as having been discussed at the 8 September 2006 board meeting of the public authority. The public authority refused the request, with the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) cited. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) were applied correctly. However, the Commissioner also finds that the exemption provided by section 44(1)(a) is not engaged and that the public authority breached section 17(1)(b) in failing to cite section 40(2) at the refusal notice or internal review stage despite later relying on this when corresponding with the Commissioner.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
