FS50178376: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML 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 | |||
|dn_ref=FS50178376 | |dn_ref=FS50178376 | ||
|dn_date=18 | |dn_date=18 December 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Royal Mail | |dn_pa=Royal Mail | ||
|dn_summary=under appeal to the Information Tribunal. | |dn_summary=The complainant made a request to Royal Mail Group PLC (the “Royal Mail”) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) for how much money it had spent on management consultants over the previous five years. The Royal Mail confirmed that it held information relevant to the request, but stated that it believed that it was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that section 43(2) was not engaged, and the information requested should be disclosed. He also found that Royal Mail had acted in breach of the requirements of section 17(1)(b). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50178376.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50178376.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:36, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50178376
- Date: 18 December 2008
- Public Authority: Royal Mail
- Summary: The complainant made a request to Royal Mail Group PLC (the “Royal Mail”) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) for how much money it had spent on management consultants over the previous five years. The Royal Mail confirmed that it held information relevant to the request, but stated that it believed that it was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that section 43(2) was not engaged, and the information requested should be disclosed. He also found that Royal Mail had acted in breach of the requirements of section 17(1)(b). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
