Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Department. He found that section 29(1) and 30(1)(b) did not apply and that the Department had not properly considered the applicability of section 36(1)(b). He directed the Department to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of the record.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the LWETB.

The Senior Investigator affirmed Irish Water’s decision to refuse access to any further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the HSE and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant’s request.

The Commissioner varied TUSLA's decision. He affirmed its decision on certain records under sections 15(1)(a), 31(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act. He annulled its decision on certain records or parts of records and directed their release. He annulled its decision on certain other records and directed TUSLA to make a fresh decision, having due regard to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (Section 37(8)) Regulations 2016, S.I. No. 218/2016 and Guidance produced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

The Commissioner annulled the decision of TUSLA and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the records, having due regard to The Freedom of Information Act 2014 (Section 37(8)) Regulations 2016, S.I. No. 218/2016 and Guidance produced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the OPW’s decision. She found that section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act applies to the records at issue as their release would disclose commercially sensitive information and the public interest would, on balance, be better served by refusing the request.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of CDETB to charge a fee of €1,140 for the search for, and retrieval and copying of, records in respect of the applicant’s request. He found that the CDETB failed to comply with the requirement in section 27(5) to notify the applicant of the need for a deposit within two weeks of receipt of the request.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Agency. He directed it to reconsider the applicant’s requests separately.

The Senior Investigator annulled the HSE’s decision and directed it to conduct a fresh decision-making process. He found that the HSE had taken an unduly narrow interpretation of the request and had therefore failed to justify its decision under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.