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 >> East Lindsey District Council (Local government (District council)) [2008] UKICO FER0096306 (14 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2008/FER0096306.html Cite as: [2008] UKICO FER0096306, [2008] UKICO FER96306 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
14 February 2008, Local government (District council)
The complainant was in dispute with the Council about a proposal to site a wind farm in the locality. He contacted the Commissioner to ask for assistance in obtaining a copy of some legal advice received by the Council, having been told that it was confidential. He also wanted copies of any correspondence surrounding the advice. After the Commissioner’s intervention the Council provided the legal advice and copies of all the surrounding correspondence it said it held. The complainant considered that the Council held further information. The Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had searched thoroughly for all the information which was covered by the request and that it had supplied this to the complainant. He concluded that on the balance of probabilities no other material was held, although the Council had failed to communicate this in its Refusal Notice, thereby breaching regulation 14(1) of the EIR. The Council also failed to provide an adequate Refusal Notice within 20 working days, thereby breaching regulation 14(2) and (3). The Commissioner also considered the Council had breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide the information it did hold with 20 working days. He concluded that the Council had wrongly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) by claiming that the legal advice was excepted from disclosure.
EIR 5: Upheld
