Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Institute to refuse access to the information sought under section 37(1)

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of TUSLA and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the request

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the NAS

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the HSE. He found that the HSE was not justified in redacting certain information relating solely to the applicant's minor son or to certain information relating solely to the applicant and her minor son under section 37(1). He found that it was justified in redacting the remaining information at issue under section 37(1)

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Defence Forces that it is not required, by virtue of section 10(2)(a), to provide a more detailed statement of reasons as to why the applicant was unsuccessful in his application for recruitment to the Defence Forces.

The Senior Investigator varied TUSLA's decision. She affirmed TUSLA's decision in relation to some records and directed the release of certain parts which she found not to be exempt under section 37. She remitted aspects of the case to TUSLA for a fresh decision making process to be undertaken on records not previously considered.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of DKIT. He found that it was justified in refusing access to the C&AG correspondence under section 42(g), but that it was not justified in refusing access to the strategy presentation under sections 29 or 36. He directed release of the presentation.