![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Channel Four Television Corp v IC & British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (Freedom of Information Act 2000) [2011] UKFTT EA_2010_0134 (GRC) (22 February 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0134.html Cite as: [2011] UKFTT EA_2010_134 (GRC), [2011] UKFTT EA_2010_0134 (GRC) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Case No. EA/2010/0134
Representation:
The Substituted Decision
For the reasons set out below, the Public Authority was entitled to withhold those parts of the documents in dispute which are marked in purple in the Closed Supplementary Bundle produced for the Tribunal by virtue of sections 41 and/or 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to supply such documents to the Complainant redacted accordingly.
Action Required
The Public Authority shall supply the redacted documents to the Complainant by 1600 on 25 March 2011.
Dated 22 February 2011
Signed
HH Judge Shanks
Background
1. the contents of correspondence from Channel and minutes of meetings regarding the availability of E4 via the sky satellite of Freeview.
2. the contents of correspondence and agreements from Channel 4 with Sky on the subject of E4 (sic)
E4 is a TV channel operated by 4 Ventures Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Channel 4. Mr Martin's request has all along been treated as covering any relevant agreement between Sky and any wholly owned subsidiary of Channel 4 as well as between Sky and Channel 4 itself.
The outstanding issue on the appeal
Findings of fact
Channel 4's arguments and the Tribunal's conclusions
Outcome
Signed
HH Judge Shanks
Dated 22 February 2011
Note 1 SI 2004/3244. See regulations 3(1), (3) and 4(4). As we record below these regulations are strictly speaking irrelevant to the issues in this appeal but they provide an obvious reasonable benchmark for this finding. [Back]
Note 2 The exact wording of the section is as follows: “Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)” [Back]
Note 3 We were referred to Bennion on Statutory Interpretation section 313 for this proposition. We note that the word used by the editor is actually “impracticable” rather than “impractical.” [Back]
Note 4 See Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police v Information Commissioner [2011] EWHC 44 (Admin). [Back]
Note 5 Article 1 provides: “Every natural and legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law …” [Back]
Note 6 See paras 72 to 78 of the Court of Appeal decision. [Back]