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 >> Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (Local government (Borough council)) [2008] UKICO FS50155421 (6 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2008/FS50155421.html Cite as: [2008] UKICO FS50155421 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
6 February 2008, Local government (Borough council)
The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“the Council”). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions. In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limit.
FOI 17: Upheld
