FS50220528: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision2" to "DNDecision" |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 36 | |dnd_section=FOI 36 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:13, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50220528
- Date: 27 October 2009
- Public Authority: University of Oxford
- Summary: The complainant requested from the public authority a copy of an initial review of a National Audit Office report on stroke care conducted by an academic member of its staff. The public authority initially relied on section 43(2) to refuse the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it also sought to rely on section 36. The Commissioner has determined that it correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information and did not require the public authority to take any further action. However, he found that it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c) by failing to state, by the time of the completion of the internal review, that it was relying on section 36(2)(b)(ii) and explain why it applied.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
