FS50278279: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50278279.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50278279.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 22:40, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50278279
  • Date: 25 March 2010
  • Public Authority: General Medical Council
  • Summary: The complainant requested from the General Medical Council (GMC) a copy of employer comments that it might have received from a Hospital Trust in relation to a specified consultant. The GMC initially responded to the request in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”), although it later sought to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) at the internal review stage. The Commissioner has concluded that section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged, as to confirm or deny whether the GMC held the requested information would disclose the personal data of the consultant, in contravention of the first data protection principle. The GMC is therefore not required to take any steps. The Commissioner, however, finds the GMC to have breached section 17(1)(b) in its processing of the request.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]