Mr William Chisholm and Scottish Borders Council (Termination of contract...) [2016] ScotIC 097_2016 (03 May 2016)

The Commissioner determined whether the exemptions cited by the Council applied and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in maintaining the exemption.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2016] ScotIC 097_2016
Parties: Applicant: Mr William Chisholm; Respondent: Scottish Borders Council
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 03 May 2016
Procedural Posture: Freedom of Information Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome: partially allowed
Legal Topics: Termination of Contract, Access to Information

Administrative Law Freedom of Information Termination of Contract Access to Information

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mr William Chisholm

Applicant

Scottish Borders Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Scottish Borders Council was obliged to disclose information relating to the termination of a contract under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner determined whether the exemptions cited by the Council applied and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in maintaining the exemption.

Court Disposition

partially allowed

Orders

The Council was ordered to disclose certain information relating to the termination of the contract, subject to redactions as permitted by law.

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 Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.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.