IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jfrcpp/v18y2010i1p70-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High Court considers whether FSA disclosures are exempt from freedom of information requests

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Gray

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report and comment on the High Court ruling on whether Financial Services Authority (FSA) disclosures are exempt from freedom of information requests. Design/methodology/approach - The paper outlines the facts surrounding the case and comments on the decision. Findings - The High Court allowed the FSA's appeal in respect of the Owen appeal and the second part of the Lewis appeal (that the names of the seven firms investigated by the FSA as a result of the mystery shopping should not be disclosed) but agreed with the Tribunal on the first part of the Lewis appeal, that the names of the firms subject to the mystery shopping exercise could be disclosed. Originality/value - This appeal shows how two very differently motivated, yet equally well‐intentioned, regulatory regimes can come into conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Gray, 2010. "High Court considers whether FSA disclosures are exempt from freedom of information requests," Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 18(1), pages 70-77, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:jfrcpp:v:18:y:2010:i:1:p:70-77
    DOI: 10.1108/13581981011022198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13581981011022198/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13581981011022198/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/13581981011022198?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Legal decisions; Disclosure;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:jfrcpp:v:18:y:2010:i:1:p:70-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.