FS50155365: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(XML import)
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50155365
|dn_ref=FS50155365
|dn_date=18/12/2008
|dn_date=18 December 2008
|dn_pa=’s University Belfast
|dn_pa=Queen’s University Belfast
|dn_summary=mes of the examiners to the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the University breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in that it did not provide an adequate refusal notice to the complainant within the specified time limit.
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information from Queen’s University, Belfast (the ‘University’) relating to the admissions test to the Institute of Professional Legal Studies (the ‘Institute’). The University withheld most of the information, relying on the exemptions under sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly withheld the requested marking schemes in reliance on the exemption under section 36(2). However the University wrongly withheld the names of internal and external examiners under section 40(2). The Commissioner therefore requires that the University disclose the names of the examiners to the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the University breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in that it did not provide an adequate refusal notice to the complainant within the specified time limit.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155365.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155365.pdf
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 23:31, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50155365
  • Date: 18 December 2008
  • Public Authority: Queen’s University Belfast
  • Summary: The complainant requested information from Queen’s University, Belfast (the ‘University’) relating to the admissions test to the Institute of Professional Legal Studies (the ‘Institute’). The University withheld most of the information, relying on the exemptions under sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly withheld the requested marking schemes in reliance on the exemption under section 36(2). However the University wrongly withheld the names of internal and external examiners under section 40(2). The Commissioner therefore requires that the University disclose the names of the examiners to the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the University breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in that it did not provide an adequate refusal notice to the complainant within the specified time limit.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Retrieved from "https://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php?title=FS50155365&oldid=16662"