Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of TUSLA. While he found that TUSLA was justified in refusing access to the vast majority of the information at issue under section 37 of the FOI Act, he directed the release of 3 further pages subject to certain redactions.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the NTMA’s decision.

The Commissioner annulled the decision of the Department. He found that the Department holds the records in question for the purposes of the FOI Act. He remitted the request to the Department to be processed afresh.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Council and directed it to engage with the applicant and to offer assistance to help him submit a fresh request that is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of KWETB. He found that KWETB was justified in refusing access to certain records under sections 15(1)(a) and 37(1) apart from a small amount of information that was redacted from one record.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of AGS to refuse access to records sought under Part 1(n) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision. He found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to the records at issue under sections 30(1)(b), 31(1)(a) or 32(1)(a)(iv) and he directed their release.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to refuse access to the records sought under sections 15(1)(a) and 32(1)(a) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE. He found that the HSE was justified in refusing the applicant’s request under section 9 of the FOI Act on the basis that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the relevant information was incomplete, incorrect or misleading