FS50137675: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision"
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/2009/fs_50137675.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50137675.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld

Latest revision as of 22:29, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50137675
  • Date: 5 February 2009
  • Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
  • Summary: The complainant requested six pieces of information from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) relating to the business activities of David Mills, the husband of the Rt. Hon.Tessa Jowell MP (the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the time of the request). DCMS informed the complainant that it did not hold any information in relation to five parts of his request. However, it supplied information relating to the sixth part, which was for information on Mr Mills’ business dealings and Miss Jowell’s declaration of these interests; though further relevant information was withheld under two of the FOI Act’s exemptions: Section 41 (Information provided in confidence) and section 42 (Legal professional privilege). The complainant contacted the Commissioner about the withholding of this information. The Commissioner agreed with DCMS that the information relating to the complainant’s request which was withheld is exempt from disclosure under sections 41 and 42 of the Act. However, he found that several procedural provisions of the Act were breached by DCMS in its handling of the request.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]