FS50232320: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision" |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) 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_50232320.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50232320.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld |
Latest revision as of 22:39, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50232320
- Date: 18 March 2010
- Public Authority: Cornwall County Council
- Summary: The complainant requested information from the Council regarding its investigation into Ambient Pressure Diving Ltd. The Council refused to disclose the information on the basis that it was exempt under section 30 of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, some information was disclosed, and the Council also sought to rely on the exemptions contained at sections 43 and 44 of the Act to withhold the remaining information. The Council cited section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 as the relevant statutory bar on disclosure. The Commissioner found that the withheld information was exempt under section 44 of the Act. As section 44 is an ‘absolute’ exemption, there was no requirement to determine whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
- 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 44 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions