Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA’s decision. He found that it was justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Hospital’s decision.

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was not justified in its decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant’s request under section 14 of the Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council. He affirmed its decision to refuse access to a small amount of personal information in the relevant records under section 37 of the FOI Act. However, he found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to the majority of the records under sections 30, 36 and 37 of the FOI Act and directed their release.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council’s refusal to provide the information sought under section 42(m)(i) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the IHB.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the HPRA’s decision under section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the NSSO’s decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of RTÉ. He found that it was justified in refusing to disclose whether or not relevant records exist.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of TUSLA. He affirmed the decision in relation to some records and found that section 37(1) applied. He annulled the decision in respect of information relating to the applicant’s adult children and directed TUSLA to undertake a fresh decision making process on the request, taking account of the provisions of section 37(2)(b) and the consent given by the relevant parties.