FS50155410: 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" |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50155410 | |dn_ref=FS50155410 | ||
|dn_date=13 | |dn_date=13 February 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=London Borough of Islington | |dn_pa=London Borough of Islington | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Islington ( | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Islington (“the Council”). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that it was commercially sensitive. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) could be applied to the information in question. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions. In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155410.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155410.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 41 | |||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 43 | |||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:32, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50155410
- Date: 13 February 2008
- Public Authority: London Borough of Islington
- Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Islington (“the Council”). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that it was commercially sensitive. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) could be applied to the information in question. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions. In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
