FS50212581: 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=FS50212581 | |dn_ref=FS50212581 | ||
|dn_date=21 | |dn_date=21 December 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency | |dn_pa=Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant requested details of whether the public authority had issued a caution under the Medicines Act 1968 to a named clinic. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority sought to rely on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) of the Act. The Commissioner subsequently determined that the public authority was correct to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner also identified some procedural breaches of the Act by the public authority related to a failure to initially identify that it was relying on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50212581.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50212581.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 30 | |dnd_section=FOI 30 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:31, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50212581
- Date: 21 December 2009
- Public Authority: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
- Summary: The complainant requested details of whether the public authority had issued a caution under the Medicines Act 1968 to a named clinic. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority sought to rely on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) of the Act. The Commissioner subsequently determined that the public authority was correct to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner also identified some procedural breaches of the Act by the public authority related to a failure to initially identify that it was relying on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
