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.
On 13 January 2014 the original requester sought the following information from the Department
All letters, emails, notes of telephone conversations between the applicant and the Department relating to the applicant's request for funding for 2014 which was granted last month... 2. Copies of the quarterly reports submitted by the applicant in connection with the 2013 funding and copies of the Department's responses to the applicant and it's internal correspondence on the matter.
On 10 February 2014, the applicant made a submission to the Department agreeing with the release of some records and identifying a number of records which she considered should not be released.
On 18 February the Department informed the applicant that it decided to part-grant the requester access to the records requested, following consultation with the applicant as an affected third party. In its decision the Department decided that some information should be redacted which it accepted to be commercially sensitive information or personal information.
On 24 February 2014, the applicant made an application to the Information Commissioner for a review of the Department's decision in relation to records numbered 15 and 17 in the schedule of documents released by the Department, which consist of consumer polls conducted by the applicant.
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.