FS50075602: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50075602 | |dn_ref=FS50075602 | ||
|dn_date=12 | |dn_date=12 February 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=The Architect Registration Board | |dn_pa=The Architect Registration Board | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant asked for details of a settlement between the Architects Registration Board and a former Board member, including the costs of both parties. The Architects Registration Board refused, but is willing to supply information about its own costs. The Commissioner decided that the information requested was personal information the disclosure of which would breach the first data principle, and so was exempt under section 40 of the Act. | |dn_summary=The complainant asked for details of a settlement between the Architects Registration Board and a former Board member, including the costs of both parties. The Architects Registration Board refused, but is willing to supply information about its own costs. The Commissioner decided that the information requested was personal information the disclosure of which would breach the first data principle, and so was exempt under section 40 of the Act. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50075602.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50075602.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |dnd_section=FOI 40 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:22, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50075602
- Date: 12 February 2007
- Public Authority: The Architect Registration Board
- Summary: The complainant asked for details of a settlement between the Architects Registration Board and a former Board member, including the costs of both parties. The Architects Registration Board refused, but is willing to supply information about its own costs. The Commissioner decided that the information requested was personal information the disclosure of which would breach the first data principle, and so was exempt under section 40 of the Act.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
