Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of QQI.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He found that it was justified in refusing access to the majority of the two records at issue under section 37 of the FOI Act but that the public interest in granting partial access to the records at issue outweighed, on balance, the privacy rights of the individual to whom the information relates.

The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of Dublin City Council.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Revenue's decision on the request on the basis that it did not make that decision in accordance with the FOI Act. She remitted the request to the Revenue for fresh consideration.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the department.

The Senior Investigator affirmed AGS's refusal of the request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the HSE in this case. He found that it was justified in refusing access to certain information contained in the records at issue under section 37(1). However, he found that it was not justified in refusing access to the remainder of the information redacted from the records under section 30(1)(c) apart from one small piece of text.

The Senior Investigator affirmed Cheshire Ireland’s refusal to grant access to the information concerned. She found that section 15(1)(a) applies on the basis that records containing that information do not exist.

The Senior Investigator annulled Irish Water’s decision to grant the request. She found that the records were exempt under section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act (commercial sensitivity) and that the public interest did not weigh in favour of granting access to them.