Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator annulled the HSE’s decision and directed it to process the applicant’s request afresh.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Hospital to redact the letter and directed its release in full.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's decision on the ground that it failed to offer assistance to the applicant under section 15(4) of the FOI Act and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process on the applicant's request

The Information Commissioner affirmed the HSE's decision, under section 37(1)

The Senior Investigator annulled the HSE's decision. He found that the applicant's 15 members do not have a material interest in the act the subject of the section 10 application and are not entitled to the statement concerned.

The Senior Investigator varied the Council's decision. He directed the Council to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of part 11b of the request. He affirmed its decision to refuse the remaining parts of the request.

The Senior Investigator affirmed EirGrid's decision. He found that EirGrid was justified in refusing access to the records under section 31(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that they would be exempt from production in a court on grounds of legal professional privilege.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to the record sought under section 37(1) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Department on the ground that it did not comply with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act. He directed the department to consider the request afresh.

The Senior Investigator affirmed Tusla's decision. He found that Tusla is not required to disclose the existence or non-existence of the records sought under section 37(6) of the FOI Act.