FS50191595: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (XML import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50191595 | |dn_ref=FS50191595 | ||
|dn_date=23 | |dn_date=23 November 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Arts Council England | |dn_pa=Arts Council England | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant submitted a number of requests to Arts Council England (ACE) about its decision to disinvest in a particular publishing company. ACE provided some information in response to the first request but withheld further documents on the basis of section 36 of the Act (effective conduct of public affairs). Further requests were refused on the basis that the aggregated cost of fulfilling them would exceed the cost limit. The complainant argued that both section 36 and section 12 had been incorrectly relied upon and furthermore argued that more information fell within the scope of his initial request and such information had not been disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded that no further information falls within the scope of the request other than that located during the course of his investigation. The Commissioner has also concluded that ACE was correct to refuse the further requests on the basis that the aggregated cost of fulfilling them would have exceeded the cost limit. Finally, with the exception of one document which the Commissioner has ordered ACE to disclose, he has concluded that section 36 has been correctly relied upon. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. | |dn_summary=The complainant submitted a number of requests to Arts Council England (ACE) about its decision to disinvest in a particular publishing company. ACE provided some information in response to the first request but withheld further documents on the basis of section 36 of the Act (effective conduct of public affairs). Further requests were refused on the basis that the aggregated cost of fulfilling them would exceed the cost limit. The complainant argued that both section 36 and section 12 had been incorrectly relied upon and furthermore argued that more information fell within the scope of his initial request and such information had not been disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded that no further information falls within the scope of the request other than that located during the course of his investigation. The Commissioner has also concluded that ACE was correct to refuse the further requests on the basis that the aggregated cost of fulfilling them would have exceeded the cost limit. Finally, with the exception of one document which the Commissioner has ordered ACE to disclose, he has concluded that section 36 has been correctly relied upon. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50191595.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50191595.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 12 | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision4 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 36 | |dnd_section=FOI 36 | ||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:30, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50191595
- Date: 23 November 2009
- Public Authority: Arts Council England
- Summary: The complainant submitted a number of requests to Arts Council England (ACE) about its decision to disinvest in a particular publishing company. ACE provided some information in response to the first request but withheld further documents on the basis of section 36 of the Act (effective conduct of public affairs). Further requests were refused on the basis that the aggregated cost of fulfilling them would exceed the cost limit. The complainant argued that both section 36 and section 12 had been incorrectly relied upon and furthermore argued that more information fell within the scope of his initial request and such information had not been disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded that no further information falls within the scope of the request other than that located during the course of his investigation. The Commissioner has also concluded that ACE was correct to refuse the further requests on the basis that the aggregated cost of fulfilling them would have exceeded the cost limit. Finally, with the exception of one document which the Commissioner has ordered ACE to disclose, he has concluded that section 36 has been correctly relied upon. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4
