FS50155395: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
 
(Undo revision 17738 by Alex skene (talk))
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50155395
|dn_ref=FS50155395
|dn_date=19/02/2008
|dn_date=19 February 2008
|dn_pa=Hertfordshire County Council
|dn_pa=Hertfordshire County Council
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council (�the Council�). The Council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. Whilst the Council did not seek to withhold the information on the grounds that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied, the Commissioner has considered whether the Council would have been justified in applying this exemption. The Commissioner�s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable. However, the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was therefore not engaged by this information. The Commissioner�s decision is that the information should be disclosed, with minor redactions.
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council (“the Council”). The Council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. Whilst the Council did not seek to withhold the information on the grounds that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied, the Commissioner has considered whether the Council would have been justified in applying this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable. However, the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was therefore not engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information should be disclosed, with minor redactions.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155395.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155395.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision
|1=FOI 43
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|2=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 43
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 00:55, 28 July 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50155395
  • Date: 19 February 2008
  • Public Authority: Hertfordshire County Council
  • Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council (“the Council”). The Council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. Whilst the Council did not seek to withhold the information on the grounds that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied, the Commissioner has considered whether the Council would have been justified in applying this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable. However, the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was therefore not engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information should be disclosed, with minor redactions.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]