FS50268377: 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" |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50268377 | |dn_ref=FS50268377 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=1 February 2010 | ||
|dn_pa=Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs | |dn_pa=Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested the names and corresponding box markings for each grade 6 (G6) lawyer, within a legal team at DEFRA, in the 2009 moderation. The public authority provided the complainant with a numerical breakdown of the distribution of the box markings; however it withheld the names and their corresponding box marking by virtue of the exemption contained at section 40(2) - third party information. The Commissioner finds that DEFRA correctly applied the exemption and requires no further action to be taken. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested the names and corresponding box markings for each grade 6 (G6) lawyer, within a legal team at DEFRA, in the 2009 moderation. The public authority provided the complainant with a numerical breakdown of the distribution of the box markings; however it withheld the names and their corresponding box marking by virtue of the exemption contained at section 40(2) - third party information. The Commissioner finds that DEFRA correctly applied the exemption and requires no further action to be taken. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 40 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:40, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50268377
- Date: 1 February 2010
- Public Authority: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
- Summary: The complainant requested the names and corresponding box markings for each grade 6 (G6) lawyer, within a legal team at DEFRA, in the 2009 moderation. The public authority provided the complainant with a numerical breakdown of the distribution of the box markings; however it withheld the names and their corresponding box marking by virtue of the exemption contained at section 40(2) - third party information. The Commissioner finds that DEFRA correctly applied the exemption and requires no further action to be taken.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
