FS50115636: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:06, 3 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50115636
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: xempt by virtue of section 12, but that neither section 22 nor section 43 applied to the alternative request, which should therefore be disclosed.
View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 22 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DNSummaryBox
+	{{DNSummaryBox
 |dn_ref=FS50115636
 |dn_date=13/02/2008
 |dn_pa=Ministry of Justice
-|dn_summary=The complainant asked the public authority for a complete database data dump in machine-readable format of information from its Statute Law Database editing system or, failing that, from its �Documents� database. The public authority refused the primary request as exceeding the �appropriate limit� of �600, and the alternative request as being exempt under sections 22 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner decided that the primary request was indeed exempt by virtue of section 12, but that neither section 22 nor section 43 applied to the alternative request, which should therefore be disclosed.
+|dn_summary=xempt by virtue of section 12, but that neither section 22 nor section 43 applied to the alternative request, which should therefore be disclosed.
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50115636.pdf
 }}
 {{DNDecision
-|1=FOI 43
+|dnd_section=FOI 12
-|2=Upheld
+|dnd_finding=Not upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 22
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 43
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
 }}