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 >> Cabinet Office (Central government ) [2008] UKICO FS50155552 (18 June 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2008/FS50155552.html Cite as: [2008] UKICO FS50155552 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
18 June 2008, Central government
The complainant asked for a list of documents disclosed by the Cabinet Office under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act") and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”) and the dates of their disclosure. The Cabinet Office responded that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s investigation found that, whilst constituent elements of the information requested are held by the Cabinet Office, they are not held in the form of a consolidated list. The Cabinet Office has argued that the process of gathering the information requested into a list constitutes information “creation”, an activity which the Act does not require public authorities to undertake. The Commissioner does not accept this view and has found that information falling within the scope of the request was held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner instructed the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with the requested information or, should they estimate that to do so would exceed the “appropriate limit” as defined in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, provide the complaint with an indication of what information can be provided within the appropriate limit, to assist the complainant in reframing the request so that it might be accommodated within the appropriate limit.
FOI 1: Upheld
