Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council's decision to refuse access to the record. She found that in accordance with section 11, the FOI Act did not apply to the record as it was created before the commencement of the Act for local authorities.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE. She found that the applicant was not entitled to access to records concerning his minor son under the provisions of S.I. No. 218 of 2016 (i.e. the Regulations made under section 37(8) of the FOI Act). She found these and all other withheld information in the records to contain personal information that was exempt under section 37 of the FOI Act. She further found that the public interest in granting the request does not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right to privacy of the various third parties.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council. She found that the record contained some personal information and upheld the Council's refusal of access to that part of the record under section 37 of the FOI Act. She directed release of the rest of the record.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. She found that it was justified in refusing access to the report on the grounds that it contained personal information and section 37(1) of the FOI Act applied.

The Senior Investigator found that the Council had failed to properly consider the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (Section 37(8)) Regulations 2016 when processing the request. He annulled the Council's decision and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant's request having due regard to the relevant Regulations.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of TCD. He found that it was justified in refusing access to the records on the basis of sections 35 and 37 of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the HSE's decision. She annulled its effective refusal of access to four files that were found but had not been considered under FOI, and directed the HSE to make a fresh decision under the FOI Act on these. She was satisfied that the HSE has now taken all reasonable steps to look for records covered by the requests and found section 15(1)(a) to apply. She annulled the HSE's refusal of access to parts of records under section 30(1)(c) (negotiation positions or plans). She found some information to be exempt under section 36(1)(c) (prejudice to the conduct or outcome of negotiations). She found other information to be exempt under section 37 (personal information). She directed the HSE to grant access to the remaining parts of the records.

The Senior Investigator varied the HSE's decision. She annulled its effective refusal of access to four files that were found but had not been considered under FOI, and directed the HSE to make a fresh decision under the FOI Act on these. She was satisfied that the HSE has now taken all reasonable steps to look for records covered by the requests and found section 15(1)(a) to apply. She annulled the HSE's refusal of access to parts of records under section 30(1)(c) (negotiation positions or plans). She found some information to be exempt under section 36(1)(c) (prejudice to the conduct or outcome of negotiations). She found other information to be exempt under section 37 (personal information). She directed the HSE to grant access to the remaining parts of the records.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council. She found that it had not justified its refusal to grant access to the majority of the records under sections 30 and 31. She directed their release subject to the redaction of personal information of third parties. She also found that the Council had justified its decision to refuse to grant access to record 3 in part under section 37. She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right of privacy of the third parties.