Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed TCD's decision. She found that section 36(1)(b) (commercial sensitivity) applies to records relating to the cost of the cabinet and that the public interest did not weigh in favour of their release. She found that sections 32(1)(a)(ix) (security of a building or other structure) and 32(1)(c) (facilitate the commission of an offence) apply to records relating to the design brief and that the circumstances necessary for the public interest to be considered are not present in this case.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the DPC.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of TUSLA.

The Senior Investigator affirmed Revenue's decision. He found that section 15(1)(a) applies (reasonable searches). He also found that the withheld records contain taxpayer information relating to the Company that is inextricably linked to taxpayer information about other related parties, the release of which is prohibited under section 851A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 and that section 41(1)(a) applies (disclosure prohibited by an enactment).

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision, under sections 36(1)(b) and 36(1)(c) of the FOI Act

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He found that some of the information at issue was not exempt under section 37(1) and directed its release.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of TII and directed the release of the records.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council's decision. He found that it was justified in refusing access to the records sought under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that they do not exist. He found that the Council was not required to go beyond the reasonable steps set out in section 17(4) of the FOI Act to fulfil the applicant's request.