Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council under sections 15(1)(i)(i), 31(1)(a), and 37(1) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the HSE's decision. He found that the HSE was largely justified in refusing access to the records sought under sections 30(1)(b), 31(1)(a), 35(1)(a), 36(1)(b), 37(1), and 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. However, he found that the decision to refuse access to a small number of records was not justified and he therefore directed their release, subject to specified redactions.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council's decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to the applicant's request insofar as it relates to additional records.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE's decision.

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

The Senior Investigator affirmed Revenue's decision.

The Senior Investigator found that the Department was justified in refusing to grant access to the records under section 31(1)(a), on the basis that they contained or revealed legal advice obtained or given, and/or formed part of a continuum of correspondence that resulted from the original requests for advice.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Department's decision on the ground that it had not conducted all reasonable searches in an effort to locate all relevant records. He directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant's request.

The Senior Investigator affirmed Tusla's decision.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Department's refusal to grant access to additional records under section 15(1)(a) and directed the Department to consider the request afresh.