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 >> Department for Business Innovation and Skills (Decision Notice) [2014] UKICO FS50497593 (22 April 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2014/FS50497593.html Cite as: [2014] UKICO FS50497593 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) for a number of named documents regarding the Kiobel v Shell case heard in the US Supreme Court. BIS disclosed some of the requested information but withhed the majority of the information by relying on the exemptions in section 27(1)(a) (internal relations), section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The complainant disputes BIS-™ application of all the exemptions and also argues that it should have provided a more specific indication as to how the exemptions had been applied to each redacted piece of information or withheld document. The Commissioner-™s decision is that: the section 27(1)(a) exemption is engaged and the public interest favours withholding the information; section 35(1)(a) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure; section 40(2) is engaged; section 42 is engaged and the public interest favours withholding the information; and that BIS breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to specify which exemption had been applied to each redaction or withheld document. The Commissioner requires the public authority to: where information has been withheld solely on the basis of section 35(1)(a), BIS must provide the complainant with a copy of the information; information redacted or withheld on the basis of section 40(2) should only continue to be withheld if it is genuinely personal data, as described in paragraph 100 below; in order to comply with section 17(1)(b) BIS must now provide the complainant with a list specifying under what exemptions(s) information has been withheld. Where an entire document has been withheld BIS must confirm which exemptions were applied. Where information is redacted, either from the information already disclosed to the complainant, or where the Commissioner has ordered disclosure BIS must annotate each redaction to specify which exemption has been applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
