Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. She affirmed the Department's decision to withhold access to records on the basis of sections 15(1)(d) and 15(2)(b). She found that section 31(1)(a) applied to a number of the records sought and affirmed the Department’s decision to withhold access to these. She also found that section 37 applied to records containing third party and joint personal information and that, on balance, the public interest did not favour their release. She found that section 30 did not apply to the remaining records sought and directed their release. She also directed the Department to undertake a new decision making process in relation to a small number of records which had been overlooked by the Department in error

The Senior Investigator affirmed the PRA's decision, under section 37 of the FOI Act

The Senior Investigator varied the Department’s decision. She affirmed its decision to refuse access to the majority of the records, under sections 15(1)(d), 42(g) and 42(h) of the FOI Act. She annulled its decision to withhold the remaining records and directed their release.

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's decision on the basis that the refused parts of the records contain personal information about identifiable individuals and/or the joint personal information of the applicant and identifiable individuals and are exempt under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. In her consideration of the public interest at section 37(5) she found that the public interest in granting access to the record does not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right to privacy of the third parties

The Senior Investigator varied the Council’s decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) applied on the basis that she was satisfied that the Council had located the only two agreements covered by the request. She affirmed the Council’s refusal of access to specific unit numbers under section 37(1) (personal information) and found that, on balance, the public interest in protecting the right of privacy of individuals outweighed the public interest in granting this part of the request. She found section 36(1)(b) and (c) to apply to some of the information for which those exemptions had been claimed but that the information covered by the exemption should be released in the public interest. She directed that the remaining parts of the withheld records be released.

The Senior Investigator annulled the ETB’s decision and directed the release of the records.

The Senior Investigator annulled the ETB’s decision and directed the release of the records.

The Senior Investigator annulled the ETB’s decision and directed the release of the records.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of EirGrid to refuse access to relevant records under section 32(1)(c) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE’s decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to the applicant’s request insofar as it relates to additional records. She found that the HSE was justified in refusing access to certain records under section 31(1)(a) of the Act as they would be exempt from production in a court on the basis of legal professional privilege.