British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Information Commissioner's Office
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> City University (Decision Notice) [2011] UKICO FS50319503 (23 June 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2011/FS50319503.html
Cite as: [2011] UKICO FS50319503
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
City University (Decision Notice) [2011] UKICO FS50319503 (23 June 2011)
Summary: The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the -˜Act-™) the workplace email addresses of all of the University-™s staff. The University confirmed that it held the information, but considered that the request was invalid. If the request was not invalid, then it believed sections 14(1), 21(1),38(1) 40(2) and section 44(1) of the Act applied to the information. The complainant requested an internal review stating that he was prepared to limit his request to those staff who had not specifically requested anonymity. Following internal review the University accepted its reliance on sections 38(1) and 44(1) was no longer necessary due the narrowing of the request but maintained its position otherwise. It also applied section 12(1). The complainant referred this case to the Commissioner. He further limited his complaint by confirming that he did not want the email addresses where individuals had expressed concern about their personal safety. During the course of his investigation, the University indicated that it was prepared to disclose all the outstanding email addresses that were within the scope of the complaint once it had undertaken a consultation with staff. However despite this assertion it has not provided the information or any further arguments about the application of exemptions. The Commissioner determines that the University was entitled to apply section 21(1) to the workplace email addresses on its contact directory. For the remaining workplace email addresses within the scope of the complaint, he has found that no exemptions have been appropriately applied to them. He has therefore ordered that this information is disclosed. He also finds procedural breaches of sections 1(1), 1(1)(b) and 10(1) because this information was not disclosed within twenty working days from receiving the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld