Information Commissioner's Office

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Liverpool City Council (Local government) [2022] UKICO 104047 (2 September 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2022/104047.html
Cite as: [2022] UKICO 104047

---

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

---

Liverpool City Council

The complainant has requested information on an audit report commissioned by Liverpool City Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on the exemption at section 36(2)(b)(i) – disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. The Commissioner finds the exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(ii) – disclosure would or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation – and section 36(2)(c) – disclosure would otherwise prejudice, or be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs – to be engaged. However, the public interest favours disclosure. In addition the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exemption at section 40(2) is engaged with regard to the named references contained in the reports with respect to senior staff and a third party. He finds that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) to withhold names of more junior staff and other third parties. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the two reports subject to the section 40(2) redactions set out in in the confidential annex. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

FOI 36(2): Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint partly upheld

Decision notice: 104047