Category: Information

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 25 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested, from the DWP, the ‘packs of information’ provided to the Universal Credit programme board members for April, May and June 2017.The DWP relies on sections 43 (commercial interests), 35 (formulation of government policy), 40(2) (personal data) and 31 (the prevention or detection of crime) to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP incorrectly relied on sections 43, 35, but correctly relied on section 31, to withhold requested information.
FOI 31: Complaint upheld FOI 43: Complaint upheld FOI 35: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50723285

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638011

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Central Government): ICO 29 Mar 2019

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) for its Information Asset Register and a list of cost codes issued by the department. The DCMS initially withheld all of this information on the basis of section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and part of it on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The DCMS subsequently disclosed the list of costs codes in full and a redacted version of the Information Asset Register. The Commissioner has concluded that the information redacted from the Information Asset Register is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50783312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638007

Winsford Town Council (Local Government): ICO 26 Apr 2019

The complainant requested information from Winsford Town Council about use by members of an assortment of different email addresses as their official council point of contact. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50829891

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638129

Essex County Council (Local Government): ICO 19 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested a copy of the Kenward Report. Essex County Council has withheld the requested information in reliance on section 36(2) – prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex County Council was correct to apply section 36(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require Essex County to Council to take any steps.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50769416

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638017

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Central Government): ICO 29 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested work plan information for the Government’s decision whether or not to proceed with the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) withheld the requested information under Regulations 12(4)(d)(material in the course of completion) and 12(4)(e)(internal communications) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner considers that all of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under Regulation 12(4)(e) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. No steps are required by the public authority.
EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0732523

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638005

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 29 Mar 2019

The complainant requested information relating to the number of complaints to the Environment Agency per anonymous household adjacent to a recycling site. The Environment agency refused to disclose the requested information under section 13 EIR. The Commissioner considers that the Environment Agency incorrectly applied regulation 13 EIR in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the number of complaints per anonymous household.
FOI 13: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0782294

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638016

Department for International Trade (Central Government): ICO 29 Mar 2019

The complainant requested information relating to working groups established by the UK Government and various States to support post-Brexit trade negotiations. The Department for International Trade (DIT) disclosed some information and refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 27 (prejudice to international relations), section 35 (formulation or development of government policy) and section 40 (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions are engaged in respect of the withheld information, and the public interest in maintaining the exemptions cited outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 27: Complaint not upheld FOI 35: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50733330

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638010

South Yorkshire and North Wales Police v The Information Commissioner: IT 12 Oct 2005

Applicants challenged the decision of the police forces not to destroy on their request personal information held about them.

Citations:

[2005] UKIT DA – 05 – 0010

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Police

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240298

Department for Communities (Northern Ireland) (Central Government): ICO 26 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities Northern Ireland (‘the DfC’) regarding the number of complaints it had received against a particular DA (‘Disability Assessor’). The DfC refused to comply with the request and citied section 40(5)(b)(a)(i) of the FOIA as a basis for this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfC was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(a)(i) FOIA as the basis for not complying with the duty set out in section 1(1)(a) FOIA to either confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50712610

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.638006

Fareham Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 22 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested recorded information from Fareham Borough Council relating to planning application P/16/0557/AO submitted by National Grid IFA2 Ltd. The Council has withheld some information from the complainant in reliance on section 40(2), 41 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that Fareham Borough Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the personal data of individuals which are contained in some of the emails, letters and attachments which have been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has properly applied the exemption provided by section 41 to withhold the draft IFA2 Interconnector Assessment Report and on section 43 to withhold various pieces of information where their disclosure would prejudice the Council’s commercial interests.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50716460

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.638019

Electoral Office for Northern Ireland (Local Government): ICO 28 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to a recall petition. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland refused the request, citing the exemption for prohibitions on disclosure (section 44(1)(a)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50802225

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.638015

CJ (International Video-Link Hearing: Data Protection) Jamaica: UTIAC 12 Mar 2019

(1) The arrangements made to enable the appellant to give evidence in his human rights appeal by video link between the British High Commission in Kingston, Jamaica and the Tribunal’s hearing centre in the United Kingdom did not involve the transfer of data to a third country, for the purposes of the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679).
(2) Even if that were not the case, the transfer was lawful under the derogation in Article 49(1)(e) of the Regulation (transfer necessary for establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims).

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 126 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Information

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637760

Chapman and East Lothian Council: SIC 24 Jun 2015

Council’s Response To Report On National Planning Framework (NPF3) – On 5 September 2014, Mr Chapman asked East Lothian Council (the Council) for information pertaining to the formulation of specific parts of the Council’s formal response to a report on the National Planning Framework (NPF3).
The Council provided Mr Chapman with some information. Following a review, Mr Chapman remained dissatisfied as he believed the Council held further information, and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had not provided Mr Chapman with all the information it held. By the close of the investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had provided Mr Chapman with all further information held. She did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2015] ScotIC 094 – 2015

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.550857

Isle of Anglesey County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Nov 2012

ICO The complainant requested information about planning agreements which the Isle of Anglesey County Council (‘the Council’) had entered into from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2011. The Council initially stated that it did not hold the information requested, and later, in its internal review it alluded to compliance with the request exceeding the appropriate cost limit under the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council agreed that the request was for environmental information and the correct access regime was the EIR. The Council sought to rely in regulation 12(4)(b) as it considered the request to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is manifestly unreasonable and the Council was entitled to refuse it under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50448174

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.530019

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant requested information about a hearing held at Stevenage Magistrates Court. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Courts and Tribunals Service has applied section 40(2) appropriately and is also correct to state that it does not hold certain information. The Commissioner does not require HM Courts and Tribunals Service to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498942

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.528794

Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd and others: ChD 15 Dec 2006

The defendant company resisted disclosure of documents saying that they had been supplied by the Financial Services Authority in confidence, and that to disclose them would be an offence.
Held: The information had already in principle been known to the defendants before the FSA investigation, and were not protected from disclosure.

Judges:

David Richards J

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-2007, [2006] EWHC 3249 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31.19(5), Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 348

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd and others CA 9-Mar-2007
The defendants had declined to produce documents saying that they had been obtained under conditions of confidence from the Financial Services Authority. The claimants said that the documents were not protected since the defendant already had the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Litigation Practice, Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.247405

University of East Anglia (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jul 2010

The complainant made a number of requests for information related to the involvement of some of the public authority’s staff in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Commissioner has found that the public authority breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response to a request within 20 working days and breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide a response to other requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0238017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.531568

University of East Anglia (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to a project they worked on. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of East Anglia (UEA) has correctly applied section 43(2) and complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50456934

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.530116

University of East Anglia (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Mar 2012

The complainant has requested various specified emails and attachments and information in relation to these. The University of East Anglia (UEA) provided a response to the complainant in which it provided him with some of the information he had requested, but refused to provide the information requested at points 3 of the request under regulation 12(5)(a) and regulation 12(5)(f) and the information requested at point 4 of the request under regulation 13(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that UEA has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(a), and regulation 13 in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0070 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0408711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.529357

Equifax Europe Ltd v Data Protection Registrar: IT 28 Jun 1991

Equifax, a credit reference agency, appealed an enforcement notice relating to its provision to those making searches, of ‘third party information’ relating not to the subject of the search, the applicant for credit, but to persons who had lived at the same address as the applicant for credit. The enforcement notice prohibited that supply. One ground of appeal was based on section 28(4) of the Act exempting data from the Registrar’s powers ‘in any case in which [their exercise] would be likely to prejudice’ either the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Section 28(1) exempted data ‘in any case in which [disclosure] would be likely to prejudice’ either the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In relation to the words ‘in any case’ the Registrar argued, and the Tribunal accepted, that the words meant ‘in any particular case’. The agency argued and the Tribunal accepted that one of the functions of a credit reference agency is the prevention of crime, because persons applying for credit may commit fraud and the searches performed by the credit reference agency may help to prevent or detect fraud. The agency further argued that the exercise by the Registrar of his powers would prejudice this because were searches to be restricted in the manner required by the Registrar ‘some cases of fraud or suspected fraud might not be exposed.’
Held: The argument was rejected: ‘the vast majority of applicants for credit were not fraudulent’ and that criminals formed only ‘a tiny proportion of applicants for credit.’ ‘ . . Personal data are exempt from the provisions referred to ‘in any case in which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice’ the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension of offenders. It seems to us that the words taken as a whole – ‘in any case in which the application of those provisions to the data’ – make it plain that the exemption applies only in particular cases where we can talk about ‘the data,’ that is to say the personal data to which we may or may not apply the provisions.’

Judges:

Aubrey L. Diamond (Deputy Chairman), Alex Lawrence and Victor Ross

Citations:

DA/90 25/49/7, [1991] UKIT DA90 – 25497

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984 28(1) 28(4)

Information

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229983

Mathieson v Information Commissioner and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary: FTTGRC 11 Apr 2011

1. The Public Authority failed to deal with the Complainant’s request for information . . in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in that it should have communicated the requested information to him;
2. The Public Authority is now required to communicate the requested information to him no later than 35 working days from the date of this decision.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2010 – 0174 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.434832

National Archives (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Apr 2012

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to the National Archives for copies of a closed extract within a Foreign Office file. In response the National Archives disclosed most of the requested information by opening up the closed extract. However, three small passages were redacted under the exemptions in section 27(1) (International relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information was exempt under section 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(d) of FOIA and that the public interest in maintaining each exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50408585

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.529420

Bristol NHS Primary Care Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Apr 2006

The complainants requested a copy of CCTV footage relating to an alleged incident of vandalism in one of the PCT’s car parks. The trust refused access to the information under section 40 of the Act, stating that it was personal data and release would breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner then investigated the nature and purpose of the CCTV cameras involved and reviewed the CCTV footage itself. Having done this, it was decided that the images were personal data and their disclosure would breach the first data protection principle, and so the exemption applied was held to be valid. As a result the Decision Notice does not identify any steps to be taken; however, when first refusing the complainants’ request for information the PCT did not respond within 20 working days, and the Commissioner has therefore found that this breached section 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50066908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533396

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Jun 2006

The complainant requested names of probation officers involved in the care of a prisoner released on licence, and also details of any actions taken against them. While out of prison the prisoner stole a motor vehicle and a police officer was killed in the ensuing pursuit. The Home Office confirmed no action was taken against the probation officers but refused to provide their names, arguing that the information was exempt under section 40 (Personal Data) and section 36 (Prejudice to the Effective Conduct of Public Affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was personal data and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. As the Commissioner decided that the information was exempt under section 40 of the FOI Act which is an absolute exemption he did not review the public interest test in respect of section 36.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50083545

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533457

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Feb 2006

On 4th January the complainant requested a copy of the ‘Dunbar report, the findings of an inquiry conducted by Ian Dunbar into a riot which took place at HM Remand Centre Risley between 30 April and 3 May 1989. The Home Office stated that the report could not be found. Following intervention from the Commissioner, the Home Office searched further and confirmed that there was no record of the report, concluding that it was not held. On the balance of evidence, the Commissioner has accepted this conclusion. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50071802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533355

National Archives (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Oct 2006

The complainant originally made the following request: ‘I would wish to apply under freedom of information for any information in the areas and on the grounds as set out in the attached letter to Buckingham Palace held by the National archives in relation to the Princess Margaret Townsend affair, and or any illegitimate child born on or about 05/01/55 to Princess Margaret.’ He subsequently made 637 requests ‘on the grounds previously stated’ to individual closed documents displayed in the National Archives’ (TNA) on-line catalogue and for the descriptions of documents where the file titles were not publicly available. The Commissioner considered representations from both parties and has decided that TNA has correctly applied sections 12 and 14 of the Act with regard to the cost limit and repeated requests. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO fs50102437

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533587

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2005

The complainant wrote to the Home Office on 9/3/05 to request a copy of a particular review. The Home Office sent acknowledgement letters on 23/3/05 and 16/5/05, however, they failed within the statutory 20 working day limit to; confirm or deny whether the specified information was held, communicate the specified information and/or issue a notice refusing to provide the specified information. In not correctly notifying the complainant of the need for an extension to the time limit to answer the request, the Home office is found to be in breach of section 10 and section 17. A final response to the request was made on 10/11/05, where some information was provided and other items were withheld.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50084412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533298

Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd: ChD 20 Feb 2004

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 347 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The claimant doctor had sought assistance from the defendant, and having been refused it had sought disclosure of its records about him. He had been refused access under the 1998 Act, and now sought access under the Civil Procedure Rules.
See Also – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 3-Mar-2006
The claimant sought disclosure under the 1998 Act by the defendant of records held by them. The respondent said that the information they held did not amount to data under the Act.
Held: The information was contained in different formats, on . .
See Also – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union CA 28-Mar-2007
The claimant asserted that the 1998 Act created rights between the parties that are in substance though not in form of a contractual nature; and rights to compensation for infringement of those primary rights of a nature that did not previously . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226162

Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Commission: ECFI 13 Apr 2005

ECJ Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Request relating to a very large number of documents – Total refusal of access – Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination – Exceptions
The claimant a consumer had requested production of documents held by the respondent. It wanted the documents to support a claim against a bank, where the Commission had itself carried out an investigation. Access was refused by the Commission saying that the burden of producing the documents was too great.
Held: If an institution wished to deny such a request, the burden of establishing good reasons lay on the institution, which should demonstrate that it had considered all conceivable options, and that each such option would impose an unreasonable burden. Here, the bundle would amount to some47,000, but the commission had not considered the particular documents, only issued a general ban, and had not discharged the onus of showing why access should be refused. The decision was set aside.
Europa Procedure – Intervention – Application for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by one of the parties – Application containing additional arguments altering the framework of the dispute – Inadmissibility of those arguments
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, fourth para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(3))
European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Obligation on the institution to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the documents – Scope – Exclusion of the obligation – Conditions
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4)
European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Obligation on the institution to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the documents – Failure to perform the obligation – Breach of principle of proportionality – Examination proving particularly onerous and inappropriate – Derogation from the obligation to examine – Burden of proof on the institution – Obligation on the institution to consult with the applicant
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4)

Citations:

T-2/03, [2005] EUECJ T-2/03, Times 20-May-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

European, Administrative, Information

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224464

Telford and Wrekin Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 24 Aug 2017

The complainant made a number of freedom of information requests to the Telford and Wrekin Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) for information regarding Gender Reassignment Surgery. The CCG initially said that the requested information was not held and told the complainant to redirect her request to NHS England. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it identified some further information and disclosed this to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University breached section 10 in its handling of the complainant’s request but she is satisfied that it has now disclosed all of the information it holds and so she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50670671

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.594025