FS50088131: 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=FS50088131 | |dn_ref=FS50088131 | ||
|dn_date=27 | |dn_date=27 November 2006 | ||
|dn_pa=Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency | |dn_pa=Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency | ||
|dn_summary=‘appropriate limit’ under section 12(1) of the Act. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 12(1) by the public authority was correct. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal. | |dn_summary=The complainant submitted a request to the MHRA for information relating to the safety of Engerix B (the Hepatitis B Vaccination). The public authority advised that it would be unable to supply all the information requested as to do so would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ under section 12(1) of the Act. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 12(1) by the public authority was correct. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/fs_50088131.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/fs_50088131.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 12 | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:23, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50088131
- Date: 27 November 2006
- Public Authority: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
- Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the MHRA for information relating to the safety of Engerix B (the Hepatitis B Vaccination). The public authority advised that it would be unable to supply all the information requested as to do so would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ under section 12(1) of the Act. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 12(1) by the public authority was correct. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
