FS50186903: 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=FS50186903 | |dn_ref=FS50186903 | ||
|dn_date=22 | |dn_date=22 December 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Department for Culture, Media and Sport | |dn_pa=Department for Culture, Media and Sport | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) concerning the takeover of Chelsea Football Club in 2003. DCMS refused to release this information because in the reasoned opinion of a qualified person it was exempt under section 36(2)(b) of the Act. Also, it argued that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The complainant requested an internal review and following the review DCMS maintained its original decision. While the complaint was waiting to be investigated and following a decision by the Commissioner in another DCMS case, the department released some of the previously withheld information while maintaining that the remaining information was exempt and disclosure was not in the public interest. The | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) concerning the takeover of Chelsea Football Club in 2003. DCMS refused to release this information because in the reasoned opinion of a qualified person it was exempt under section 36(2)(b) of the Act. Also, it argued that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The complainant requested an internal review and following the review DCMS maintained its original decision. While the complaint was waiting to be investigated and following a decision by the Commissioner in another DCMS case, the department released some of the previously withheld information while maintaining that the remaining information was exempt and disclosure was not in the public interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS correctly applied section 36(2)(b) to the withheld information. However, in respect of some of the information, he believes the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The public authority has therefore breached section 1(1)(b) in failing to disclose the requested information. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50186903.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50186903.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 36 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:36, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50186903
- Date: 22 December 2009
- Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
- Summary: The complainant requested information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) concerning the takeover of Chelsea Football Club in 2003. DCMS refused to release this information because in the reasoned opinion of a qualified person it was exempt under section 36(2)(b) of the Act. Also, it argued that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The complainant requested an internal review and following the review DCMS maintained its original decision. While the complaint was waiting to be investigated and following a decision by the Commissioner in another DCMS case, the department released some of the previously withheld information while maintaining that the remaining information was exempt and disclosure was not in the public interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS correctly applied section 36(2)(b) to the withheld information. However, in respect of some of the information, he believes the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The public authority has therefore breached section 1(1)(b) in failing to disclose the requested information.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
