Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of TUSLA.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE. He found that it was justified in refusing access to the information at issue under section 37(1) on the ground that release of the information would involve the disclosure of personal information relating to third parties.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Department’s decision and directed the release of the records to the applicant, subject to the redaction of parts of the records that do not fall within the scope of the review. She found that the Department was not justified in refusing access to the records under sections 29, 31, 32, 36 or 42 of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's decision. Based on the particular circumstances of this case, she found that the records are exempt under section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act and that, on balance, the public interest would be better served by refusing the request.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) applied to some records on the basis that they do not exist or cannot be found after reasonable searches have been carried out. She found that section 37(1) applied to the rest of the records on the basis that they contain the personal information of individuals other than the applicant and/or personal information of third parties inextricably linked to information about the applicant's herd number. She found that the public interest in granting access to such records was outweighed by the public interest in upholding the right of privacy.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the NAS. She refused access to the records on the basis of section 37(1) of the FOI Act. She found that to grant access to the records would involve the disclosure of personal information of individuals other than the applicant and that the public interest that the request should be granted does not outweigh the public interest that the right of privacy of those individuals should be upheld

The Senior Investigator affirmed the NTA's decision to grant the request. She found that the records were not exempt under section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act and directed their release.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. She found that section 29(1)(a) applied to one record in full and another in part and that it would be contrary to the public interest to grant access to that information. She also found that section 32(1)(b) applied to parts of certain records and that the public interest did not favour the release of those records. She further found that sections 29(1)(a) and 32(1)(b) did not apply to certain parts of a record and directed the release of those parts.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council’s decision and directed the release of the records to the applicant. She found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to the records under section 32 of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of the Health Information and Quality Authority