FS50156539: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision") |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:57, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50156539
- Date: 11 September 2008
- Public Authority: Child Support Agency
- Summary: The complainant requested the name and address of the solicitor who had provided advice to the Child Support Agency (the CSA) in relation to an application for a special payment referral. The CSA provided the name of the corporate section in which the solicitor worked and its address, but refused to disclose the actual name of the solicitor citing the exemptions at sections 36(2)(c) and 38 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also cited the exemption at section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the information is the personal data of the solicitor, the disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the public authority applied the Act appropriately in citing the section 40(2) exemption. However, the Commissioner decided that the authority initially breached sections 10 and 17 of the Act.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
