FS50194701: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:22, 3 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50194701
Date: 24/11/2009
Public Authority: House of Lords Appointments Commission
Summary: o rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) as basis upon which to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of this request.
View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DNSummaryBox
+	{{DNSummaryBox
 |dn_ref=FS50194701
 |dn_date=24/11/2009
 |dn_pa=House of Lords Appointments Commission
-|dn_summary=The complainant asked the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HLAC) whether Lord Clement-Jones had proposed, nominated, seconded or supported any individual�s nomination for the peerage. The HLAC interpreted this request as seeking information about all candidates other than Lord Hameed who was the subject of another request submitted by the complainant. The complainant was content with this interpretation of the request. The HLAC refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of this request citing the exemptions contained at sections 37(2) (conferring of an honour), 40(5)(b)(i) (personal data) and 41(2) (information provided in confidence) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the HLAC were correct to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) as basis upon which to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of this request.
+|dn_summary=o rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) as basis upon which to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of this request.
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50194701.pdf
 }}
 {{DNDecision
-|1=FOI 40
+|dnd_section=FOI 40
-|2=Not upheld
+|dnd_finding=Not upheld
 }}