FS50092946: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision4" to "DNDecision" |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision" |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 12 | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
Revision as of 21:56, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50092946
- Date: 7 February 2007
- Public Authority: Canterbury City Council
- Summary: The complainant made a request for all the information held by specific departments of the public authority that contained a reference to his companies. The public authority supplied some information; however the complainant believed that the public authority held further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with section 1(1)(b) and section 12 as it acted reasonably in conducting proper searches and the cost of retrieving electronic information would exceed the appropriate limit. However, the public authority has breached section 10; time for compliance and section 1(1)(a) in relation to specific financial details. It has also misapplied section 42 (legal professional privilege) to some information.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
