Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Revenue's decision to withhold parts of the record on the basis that the details were subject to a duty of confidence and exempt under section 35(1)(b) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Revenue's refusal of the record. She noted that it was concerned with the tax affairs of the applicant and other companies within a company group. She found that granting access to information about those other companies would breach the duty of confidence owed by the Revenue to them. She found that section 35(1)(b) applies. Although some small parts of the record relate solely to the applicant, she did not consider the provisions of section 18 to require their disclosure.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of TUSLA. While he found that TUSLA was justified in refusing access to the vast majority of the information at issue under section 37 of the FOI Act, he directed the release of two pages in full.

The Senior Investigator annulled Eirgrid’s decision on the records. She did not make any further order in relation to them because in a related decision (OIC-53497-W8S4T6 (previously 190229)), she directed Eirgrid to carry out a fresh decision making process on the applicant’s request in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator annulled Eirgrid’s decision on the applicant’s request for records and on the application for a statement of reasons. She directed Eirgrid to carry out a fresh decision making process on these in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the IDA's decision. She affirmed its decision on the majority of the report, under section 36(1)(c) of the FOI Act. She annulled its decision on the remaining pieces of information and directed their release

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Institute's decision. She found that sections 36(1)(b) or 37(1) of the FOI Act apply to the records to which access was refused in full or in part by the Institute, as release of these records would disclose commercially sensitive information or personal information of third parties or joint personal information. She further found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in refusing it and in protecting the privacy of individuals other than the applicant.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of Screen Ireland. He found that the information at issue was not exempt under sections 35 or 36.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council