FS50086622: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
XML import
m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision"
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50086622
|dn_ref=FS50086622
|dn_date=04/06/2007
|dn_date=4 June 2007
|dn_pa=Department of Trade and Industry
|dn_pa=Department of Trade and Industry
|dn_summary=f the public interest favours withholding the information sought. Accordingly there is no remedial action that the Commissioner requires DTI to take. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
|dn_summary=The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act. He has decided that exemptions in sections 36 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are engaged and, in the case of the former, that the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information sought. Accordingly there is no remedial action that the Commissioner requires DTI to take. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50086622.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50086622.pdf
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 22:24, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50086622
  • Date: 4 June 2007
  • Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry
  • Summary: The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act. He has decided that exemptions in sections 36 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are engaged and, in the case of the former, that the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information sought. Accordingly there is no remedial action that the Commissioner requires DTI to take. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]