FS50212581: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 22:38, 15 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50212581
Date: 21 December 2009
Public Authority: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Summary: The complainant requested details of whether the public authority had issued a caution under the Medicines Act 1968 to a named clinic. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority sought to rely on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) of the Act. The Commissioner subsequently determined that the public authority was correct to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner also identified some procedural breaches of the Act by the public authority related to a failure to initially identify that it was relying on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information.
View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

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

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-	{{DNSummaryBox
+{{DNSummaryBox
 |dn_ref=FS50212581
-|dn_date=21/12/2009
+|dn_date=21 December 2009
 |dn_pa=Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
-|dn_summary=dentified some procedural breaches of the Act by the public authority related to a failure to initially identify that it was relying on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information.
+|dn_summary=The complainant requested details of whether the public authority had issued a caution under the Medicines Act 1968 to a named clinic. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority sought to rely on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) of the Act. The Commissioner subsequently determined that the public authority was correct to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner also identified some procedural breaches of the Act by the public authority related to a failure to initially identify that it was relying on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information.
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50212581.pdf
 }}