FS50155421: 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=FS50155421 | |dn_ref=FS50155421 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=6 February 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead | |dn_pa=Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead | ||
|dn_summary= the complainant, with minor redactions. In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limit. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“the Council”). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions. In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limit. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155421.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155421.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 41 | |dnd_section=FOI 41 | ||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 43 | |dnd_section=FOI 43 | ||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:28, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50155421
- Date: 6 February 2008
- Public Authority: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
- Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“the Council”). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions. In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limit.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3
