The complainant asked the public authority for information about two firms of stockbrokers. The public authority did not hold information about one; provided a small amount of information about the other; and applied the exemptions under sections 44, 43 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the remaining information. After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority indicated that it was prepared to release some further information; it added the exemptions under sections 21 and 31 to some of the information; and identified further information held which fell within the request, the processing of which was likely to bring the whole request over the appropriate costs limit and so render it non-disclosable under section 12. The Commissioner decided that the request could have been refined to bring it within the costs limit, had the public authority identified all of the relevant information at the outset. He also decided that some of the information was exempt under sections 21, 40 and 44 of the Act but, in breach of section 1(1), the public authority had failed to disclose other information to which the cited exemptions under sections 21, 31, 40, 43 and 44 did not apply. The Commissioner further decided that the public authority had failed to identify all relevant information falling within the request and therefore provide adequate written notification about whether it was held, in breach of section 1(1)(a); and that it had delayed in disclosing information in breach of sections 10(1) and 1(1)(b). The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose the information which it had improperly withheld. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0115 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld
[2009] UKICO FS50129430
Bailii
England and Wales
Information
Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.532320
