FS50220528: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:24, 3 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50220528
Date: 27/10/2009
Public Authority: University of Oxford
Summary: ling to state, by the time of the completion of the internal review, that it was relying on section 36(2)(b)(ii) and explain why it applied.
View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DNSummaryBox
+	{{DNSummaryBox
 |dn_ref=FS50220528
 |dn_date=27/10/2009
 |dn_pa=University of Oxford
-|dn_summary=The complainant requested from the public authority a copy of an initial review of a National Audit Office report on stroke care conducted by an academic member of its staff. The public authority initially relied on section 43(2) to refuse the request. During the course of the Commissioner�s investigation, it also sought to rely on section 36. The Commissioner has determined that it correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information and did not require the public authority to take any further action. However, he found that it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c) by failing to state, by the time of the completion of the internal review, that it was relying on section 36(2)(b)(ii) and explain why it applied.
+|dn_summary=ling to state, by the time of the completion of the internal review, that it was relying on section 36(2)(b)(ii) and explain why it applied.
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50220528.pdf
 }}
 {{DNDecision
-|1=FOI 36
+|dnd_section=FOI 17
-|2=Not upheld
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 36
+|dnd_finding=Not upheld
 }}