Dr Nick McKerrell and Glasgow Caledonian University [2012] ScotIC 106_2012 (29 June 2012)

The decision turned on whether the requested information was exempt from disclosure under the Act; the Commissioner determined the applicability of exemptions and the public interest in disclosure.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2012] ScotIC 106_2012
Parties: Applicant: Dr Nick McKerrell; Respondent: Glasgow Caledonian University
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 29 June 2012
Procedural Posture: Freedom of Information Appeal / Decision
Outcome: partially allowed
Legal Topics: Freedom of Information, Payment for Marking Exam Scripts

Information Law Freedom of Information Payment for Marking Exam Scripts

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Dr Nick McKerrell

Applicant

Glasgow Caledonian University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Appeal / Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether information about payment made for marking of exam scripts should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The decision turned on whether the requested information was exempt from disclosure under the Act; the Commissioner determined the applicability of exemptions and the public interest in disclosure.

Court Disposition

partially allowed

Orders

The respondent is required to disclose the information regarding payment for marking exam scripts, subject to any applicable exemptions.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.