Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
In dealing with the request, the CER consulted with potentially affected third parties on some of the records identified by it as relevant to the request. For procedural reasons, those records on which third parties were consulted were treated as the subject of a separate review by this Office. I have, however, decided that it is appropriate that this composite decision be issued covering both reviews.
In conducting this review, I have had regard to the submissions of the applicant, to the submissions of the CER, to the submissions of third parties and to the provisions of the FOI Acts. I have decided to bring this matter to a conclusion is by making a formal, binding decision.
The review relates solely to whether the decision of the CER to refuse access to the records sought was justified. Any records or parts of records released during the course of the review are no longer in scope of this decision. The records remaining in scope are as follows:
Review No. 130264: Records 46, 63, 65, 76-80, 83, 85, and 86. Review No. 130287: Records 19, 57, 58, 59, 66, 72 and 73.
Section 43(3) Although I am obliged to give reasons for my decision, Section 43(3) of the FOI Act requires the me to take all reasonable precautions in the course of a review to prevent disclosure of information contained in an exempt record. This means that the extent to which I can describe the records is limited.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.