Kalman v Information Commissioner and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 2009 |
| Year | 2009 |
| Date | 2009 |
| Court | Information Tribunal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4 cases
-
Petr Aven v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
...the word “required” in s 24 of FoIA means “reasonably necessary” (see Kalman v Information Commissioner and the Department of Transport ( EA/2009/0111 8 July 2010) [33]). That was not a decision on the issue before me now. The point made to, and accepted by, the Tribunal was that it is “not......
-
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office v Information Commissioner, Williams and Others (Sections 23 and 24)
...differently worded. (4) The term “required” means “reasonably necessary”: Kalman v Information Commissioner & Department for Transport [2011] 1 Info LR 664, para 33. (5) National security is a matter of vital national importance in which the Tribunal should pause and reflect very carefully......
-
Keane GIA 3119 2015
...outweigh it (as recognised in the First-tier Tribunal decision in Kalman v Information Commissioner [2010] UKFTT EA 2009 0111 (GRC), [2011] 1 Info LR 664 at paragraph [47]). 59. Thirdly, the Appellant’s arguments as to the public interest balancing test were in effect exclusively devoted to......
-
Keane v The Information Commissioner and others
...outweigh it (as recognised in the First-tier Tribunal decision in Kalman v Information Commissioner [2010] UKFTT EA 2009 0111 (GRC), [2011] 1 Info LR 664 at paragraph 59. Thirdly, the Appellant’s arguments as to the public interest balancing test were in effect exclusively devoted to attack......