FS50280638: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:27, 3 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50280638
Date: 08/02/2010
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: ’s position is correct. However, he did find a breach of section 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
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=FS50280638
 |dn_date=08/02/2010
 |dn_pa=Ministry of Justice
-|dn_summary=The complainant requested the details of all complaints about a named judge, including their nature, details and results of investigations carried out. The public authority applied section 40(5) and neither confirmed nor denied whether information was held in respect to this request. It did this because it felt that confirming or denying whether information would be held would expose personal data of the named individual and this would have been unfair. The Commissioner has considered this case and has determined that the public authority�s position is correct. However, he did find a breach of section 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
+|dn_summary=’s position is correct. However, he did find a breach of section 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50280638.pdf
 }}
 {{DNDecision
-|1=FOI 40
+|dnd_section=FOI 17
-|2=Not upheld
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 40
+|dnd_finding=Not upheld
 }}