BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> St Edmundsbury Borough Council (Decision Notice) [2009] UKICO FS50195872 (03 March 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2009/FS50195872.html Cite as: [2009] UKICO FS50195872 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant asked the Information Commissioner (-the Commissioner-) to consider the response provided by St Edmundsbury Borough Council (-the Council-) to a request he had made about an agreement concerning the Cattle Market Redevelopment Project in Bury St Edmunds. He sought copies of the advice (as well as the source of that advice) that led to another company being added as surety to the existing agreement concerning the project. As it was not clear from the initial response provided whether the Council held information relevant to the request, the Commissioner sought to clarify what, if any, relevant information was held. The Council identified that it held a number of reports containing some information that it believed was exempt under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (-the Act-) but following the Commissioner-s intervention, the information relevant to the request was disclosed. Further investigation revealed that the Council held other relevant information in the form of three items of correspondence. The Council applied the exemptions under sections 43(1) and 43(2) of the Act to withhold this information. The Commissioner investigated and was not satisfied that the Council had been able to demonstrate that either exemption was engaged and he therefore requires the Council to disclose the information to the complainant. Additionally, the Commissioner noted a number of procedural failings, particularly concerning section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
