FS50125011: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50125011 | |dn_ref=FS50125011 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=7 September 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=University of Nottingham | |dn_pa=University of Nottingham | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested details of grants made to the public authority by organisations associated with the military sector. The public authority initially refused to confirm or deny whether it had contracted with any of the private companies named in the request. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the stance of the public authority altered and it now confirmed that it did contract with some of the private companies specified in the request, but that these companies had objected to the disclosure of the information held by the public authority that related to them. The public authority cited the exemption provided by section 43(2). The Commissioner finds that this exemption was applied correctly, but also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) when responding to the request. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested details of grants made to the public authority by organisations associated with the military sector. The public authority initially refused to confirm or deny whether it had contracted with any of the private companies named in the request. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the stance of the public authority altered and it now confirmed that it did contract with some of the private companies specified in the request, but that these companies had objected to the disclosure of the information held by the public authority that related to them. The public authority cited the exemption provided by section 43(2). The Commissioner finds that this exemption was applied correctly, but also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) when responding to the request. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 43 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:28, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50125011
- Date: 7 September 2009
- Public Authority: University of Nottingham
- Summary: The complainant requested details of grants made to the public authority by organisations associated with the military sector. The public authority initially refused to confirm or deny whether it had contracted with any of the private companies named in the request. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the stance of the public authority altered and it now confirmed that it did contract with some of the private companies specified in the request, but that these companies had objected to the disclosure of the information held by the public authority that related to them. The public authority cited the exemption provided by section 43(2). The Commissioner finds that this exemption was applied correctly, but also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) when responding to the request.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
