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 >> Merton London Borough Council (Decision Notice) [2010] UKICO FS50252690 (24 August 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2010/FS50252690.html Cite as: [2010] UKICO FS50252690 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (-the Council-) concerning proposals to make certain roles within the Council redundant. The Council initially refused to provide any information citing the exemptions under section 40(2) and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (-the FOIA-). In relation to the latter exemption, it concluded that the public interest favoured withholding the information. During the internal review, the Council provided the information that it had sought to withhold using section 40(2). Once the scope of the request had been clarified, the information withheld under section 43(2) was no longer relevant. The Council identified that it held a number of items of information relating to the request that had either been disclosed or which were already in the public domain. It disclosed this information in a single bundle to the complainant. It then sought to withhold a small amount of information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). It considered that the public interest favoured maintenance of the exemptions. The Information Commissioner (-the Commissioner-) was satisfied that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was engaged in respect of this information but he did not agree that the public interest favoured withholding it. The arguments identified by the qualified person in relation to section 36(2)(c) were found to be relevant and reasonable but in relation to section 36(2)(b)(ii). Having addressed the arguments under section 36(2)(b)(ii), it was not necessary to consider section 36(2)(c) further as no additional arguments were made about how disclosure would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner considers that the Council breached sections 10(1), 1(1)(b) and 17(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Partly Upheld
