FER0099394: 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=FER0099394 | |dn_ref=FER0099394 | ||
|dn_date=14 | |dn_date=14 November 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=East Sussex County Council | |dn_pa=East Sussex County Council | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested a copy of a waste management contract East Sussex County Council (the | |dn_summary=The complainant requested a copy of a waste management contract East Sussex County Council (the ‘ESCC’) has agreed with an independent waste management contractor. The council withheld some sections of the contract on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality of information) applied. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the ESCC has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the Regulations in that some sections of the redacted information should have been supplied to the complainant. The exception to the duty to disclose the requested information was however applicable to other sections of the contract. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fer_0099394.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fer_0099394.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=EIR 12(5)(e) | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:20, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FER0099394
- Date: 14 November 2007
- Public Authority: East Sussex County Council
- Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a waste management contract East Sussex County Council (the ‘ESCC’) has agreed with an independent waste management contractor. The council withheld some sections of the contract on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality of information) applied. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the ESCC has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the Regulations in that some sections of the redacted information should have been supplied to the complainant. The exception to the duty to disclose the requested information was however applicable to other sections of the contract.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 12(5)(e) - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
