FS50152888: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(XML import)
(CSV import)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50152888
|dn_ref=FS50152888
|dn_date=05/02/2008
|dn_date=5 February 2008
|dn_pa=Companies House
|dn_pa=Companies House
|dn_summary=The complainant asked Companies House to tell him the identity of an informant who had made allegations, he believed maliciously, about his company which had proved to be unfounded. Companies House had refused the request citing the section 41 exemption. The Commissioner found that, in refusing the request, Companies House had dealt with it in accordance with part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act; he also found no evidence of malicious intent on the part of the informant.
|dn_summary=The complainant asked Companies House to tell him the identity of an informant who had made allegations, he believed maliciously, about his company which had proved to be unfounded. Companies House had refused the request citing the section 41 exemption. The Commissioner found that, in refusing the request, Companies House had dealt with it in accordance with part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act; he also found no evidence of malicious intent on the part of the informant.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50152888.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50152888.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision1
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}

Revision as of 21:28, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50152888
  • Date: 5 February 2008
  • Public Authority: Companies House
  • Summary: The complainant asked Companies House to tell him the identity of an informant who had made allegations, he believed maliciously, about his company which had proved to be unfounded. Companies House had refused the request citing the section 41 exemption. The Commissioner found that, in refusing the request, Companies House had dealt with it in accordance with part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act; he also found no evidence of malicious intent on the part of the informant.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Template:DNDecision1