South African law

FS50803813

Retrieved on: 
Friday, July 12, 2019

The complainant has requested information about the law relating to the competence and compellability of the Sovereign to give evidence in court proceedings. The Crown Prosecution Service withheld the information, citing section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that although section 42(1) of the FOIA is engaged, the public interest favours disclosure.
The Commissioner requires the Crown Prosecution Service to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

Disclose the withheld information to the complainant.

The Crown Prosecution Service 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Key Points: 
  • The Crown Prosecution Service withheld the information, citing section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of the FOIA.
  • The Commissioners decision is that although section 42(1) of the FOIA is engaged, the public interest favours disclosure.
  • The Commissioner requires the Crown Prosecution Service to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
  • The Crown Prosecution Service must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.

FS50776941

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, July 6, 2019

The complainant has requested information about disciplinary decisions made in light of Advisory Committee Conduct Hearing recommendations. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) confirmed that it held the requested information but maintained that it was exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information.

Key Points: 
  • The complainant has requested information about disciplinary decisions made in light of Advisory Committee Conduct Hearing recommendations.
  • The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed that it held the requested information but maintained that it was exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA.
  • The Commissioners decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information.

FS50833342

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, July 6, 2019

The complainant has requested information about a person who, he alleges, has caused criminal damage to his property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Huntingdonshire District Council failed to its refusal notice within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 14(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.

Key Points: 

The complainant has requested information about a person who, he alleges, has caused criminal damage to his property. The Commissioners decision is that Huntingdonshire District Council failed to its refusal notice within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 14(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.

Five Clark Fountain Attorneys Named to Florida Legal Elite

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, June 25, 2019

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., June 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather & Littky-Rubin is pleased to announce five attorneys have been selected to the 2019 Florida Legal Elite list by Florida Trend.

Key Points: 
  • WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., June 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather & Littky-Rubin is pleased to announce five attorneys have been selected to the 2019 Florida Legal Elite list by Florida Trend.
  • The Florida Legal Elite list includes less than two percent of practicing attorneys in the state.
  • The attorneys at our West Palm Beach personal injury law firm have been featured in the Florida Legal Elite more than 25 times.
  • The attorneys at Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather & Littky-Rubin, aWest Palm Beachpersonal injury law firm, have been representing clients inFloridaand throughoutthe United Statesfor three decades.

FS50806012

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, June 20, 2019

The complainant has requested a copy of complaint monitoring forms and the dates when these were introduced by the council. The council applied section 14 and refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse to respond further to the request. She has however decided that the council failed to comply with section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the complainant's request within the required period of time. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.

Key Points: 
  • The complainant has requested a copy of complaint monitoring forms and the dates when these were introduced by the council.
  • The council applied section 14 and refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious.
  • The Commissioners decision is that the council was correct to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse to respond further to the request.
  • She has however decided that the council failed to comply with section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the complainant's request within the required period of time.

New Commission's Decisions on 20 June 2019

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, June 20, 2019

New Commission's Decisions on 20 June 2019

Key Points: 
  • New Commission's Decisions on 20 June 2019

    20 Jun 2019

    A financial penalty of $6,000 was imposed on InfoCorp for failing to put in place reasonable security arrangements to protect the personal data of individuals.

  • A financial penalty of $10,000 was imposed on AIA for failure to take reasonable security arrangements in its letter generation process.
  • A warning was issued to Xbot for failing to put in place data protection policies to comply with the provisions of the PDPA.
  • Cigna Europe Insurance Company S.A.-N.V. was found not in breach of the PDPA in relation to allegation that it had failed to make reasonable security arrangements to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of the personal data of its policy members.

Vodafone Group Plc Announces Pricing Of Tender Offers

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, June 18, 2019

The "Results Announcement Date" is expected to be June 19, 2019, unless the Offers are extended.

Key Points: 
  • The "Results Announcement Date" is expected to be June 19, 2019, unless the Offers are extended.
  • The Company's obligation to accept Notes tendered in the Offers is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions described in the Offer to Purchase.
  • The Company reserves the right, subject to applicable law, to waive any and all conditions to the Offers.
  • Holders of the Notes are urged to carefully read the Offer to Purchase before making any decision with respect to the Offers.

New Commission's Decision on 13 June 2019

Retrieved on: 
Friday, June 14, 2019

A financial penalty of $33,000 was imposed on DS Human Resource for failing to put in place data protection policies and for not making reasonable security arrangements to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of the personal data of job applicants.

Key Points: 

A financial penalty of $33,000 was imposed on DS Human Resource for failing to put in place data protection policies and for not making reasonable security arrangements to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of the personal data of job applicants.

FS50790477

Retrieved on: 
Friday, June 14, 2019

In a multi-part request the complainant has requested information about disciplinary processes and procedures from the University of Manchester (‘the University’).  The University initially complied with some parts of the request, relied on section 40(2)(personal data) and section 42(legal professional privilege) to withhold some of the requested information and relied on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with parts of the request.  During the Commissioner’s investigation the University reconsidered its position.  It now considers that it should have relied on section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit) and refused to comply with any part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Under section 12(1) of the FOIA the University is not obliged to comply with the complainant’s request in its entirety. At the time of the request, the University did not comply with its duty under section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance. The University breached section 17(5) as it did not give the complainant an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days. The complainant re-submitted a refined request with regard to some parts of the request and the University subsequently complied with the remaining parts.  As such, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps with regard to its breach of section 16(1).

Key Points: 
  • In a multi-part request the complainant has requested information about disciplinary processes and procedures from the University of Manchester (the University).
  • At the time of the request, the University did not comply with its duty under section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance.
  • The University breached section 17(5) as it did not give the complainant an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days.
  • The complainant re-submitted a refined request with regard to some parts of the request and the University subsequently complied with the remaining parts.

FS50799018

Retrieved on: 
Friday, June 14, 2019

The complainant has requested a copy of the evidence that was considered by the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) as part of their decision to allow a particular academy to reduce the number of pupils it admitted. The Department for Education (DfE) has refused to provide some of the requested information under section 36 – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) is engaged in respect of all the withheld information. However the public interest favours disclosing a limited amount of that information. Section 36(2)(c) has also been applied to those same pieces of, information. However the Information Commissioner finds that that exemption is not engaged. Finally the Information Commissioner finds that the DfE breached section 10 by failing to respond to the request within twenty working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information that is not covered by either section 36(2)(b)(i) or 36(2)(c). This is identified in the confidential annex which has been provided to the DfE only.

Key Points: 
  • The Department for Education (DfE) has refused to provide some of the requested information under section 36 prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs.
  • The Information Commissioners decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) is engaged in respect of all the withheld information.
  • Finally the Information Commissioner finds that the DfE breached section 10 by failing to respond to the request within twenty working days of receipt.
  • The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information that is not covered by either section 36(2)(b)(i) or 36(2)(c).