FS50278279: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:27, 3 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50278279
Date: 25/03/2010
Public Authority: General Medical Council
Summary: ion 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]

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DNSummaryBox
+	{{DNSummaryBox
 |dn_ref=FS50278279
 |dn_date=25/03/2010
 |dn_pa=General Medical Council
-|dn_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.
+|dn_summary=ion 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.
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50278279.pdf
 }}
 {{DNDecision
-|1=FOI 40
+|dnd_section=FOI 17
-|2=Not upheld
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 40
+|dnd_finding=Not upheld
 }}