You can search for decisions here. The FOI Act 2014 replaced the FOI Acts 1997 and 2003. The filters on the left allow you to find decisions based on whether they are pre 2014 or post 2014. Please note that the sections of the 2014 Act do not necessarily correspond to the sections of the old Acts.
The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Defence Forces. He found that that it was 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. He affirmed the decision of the Defence Forces to refuse access to four records under section 33(3)(a) of the FOI Act. He found that it was not justified in redacting certain information from four other records under section 33(1)(a) and he directed the release of the redacted information.
19th June 2020
OIC-53376-D1X2C5
Defence Forces
s.10,s.33,s.33(1)(a),s.33(3)(a)
The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.
18th June 2020
OIC-67088-D5W9N3
Louth County Council
s.15,s.15(1)(d)
The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Council and directed release of the report, subject to the redaction of third party information that falls outside the scope of this review.
OIC-67913-Y8G2C6
Waterford City and County Council
s.32,s.32(1)(a)(x)
The Commissioner affirmed the decision of the Department to refuse access to the records at issue under sections 29(1) and 37(1) of the FOI Act.
OIC-53314-F9G9L8 (190086)
Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection
s.29,s.29(1)
The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Defence Forces. He found that the applicant had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the information at issue was incomplete, incorrect, or misleading.
OIC-61125-M1K4R4
s.9
The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department?s decision. She found that the Department was justified in refusing to grant access to the record under section 30(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that release of the record could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of tests carried out by the Department and the public interest would not, on balance, be better served by the granting of the request.
OIC-58746-X6Q2W1
Department of Education and Skills
s.17,s.17(2),s.30,s.30(1)(a)
The Senior Investigator affirmed the Departments decision. She found that the Department was justified in refusing to grant access to the record under section 30(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that release of the record could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of tests carried out by the Department and the public interest would not, on balance, be better served by the granting of the request.
The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE's decision and found that the withheld parts of the records were exempt under section 37 of the FOI Act.
OIC-67229-K8V2D2
Health Service Executive
s.37,s.37(1)
The Commissioner affirmed the decision of the Department to refuse access to the records at issue under sections 29(1) and 37(1) of the FOI Act
s.11,s.11(1),s.29,s.29(1)