FS50190517: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(XML import)
(CSV import)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50190517
|dn_ref=FS50190517
|dn_date=09/09/2009
|dn_date=9 September 2009
|dn_pa=Liverpool City Council
|dn_pa=Liverpool City Council
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council regarding the departure of Robyn Archer. The Council refused to disclose the requested information under sections 40(2), 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the Council breached the requirements of sections 1(1), 17(1) and 10(1) of the Act. However, he found that the requested information is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) of the Act.
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council regarding the departure of Robyn Archer. The Council refused to disclose the requested information under sections 40(2), 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the Council breached the requirements of sections 1(1), 17(1) and 10(1) of the Act. However, he found that the requested information is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) of the Act.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50190517.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50190517.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision1
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision2
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision3
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}

Revision as of 22:30, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50190517
  • Date: 9 September 2009
  • Public Authority: Liverpool City Council
  • Summary: The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council regarding the departure of Robyn Archer. The Council refused to disclose the requested information under sections 40(2), 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the Council breached the requirements of sections 1(1), 17(1) and 10(1) of the Act. However, he found that the requested information is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) of the Act.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3