Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. She found that section 30(1)(b) applies to the records concerned, as release of these records could have a significant, adverse effect on the performance by the Department of its functions relating to management. She found that the public interest would, on balance, be better served by refusing the request.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to records sought under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He annulled the Department's decision to refuse access to one record in part under section 31(1)(a) of the FOI Act and found that 42(f) of the Act also did not apply. He affirmed the Department's decision to refuse access to bank account details redacted from another record under section 37(1) of the Act. He also affirmed the Department's decision to refuse access to additional records relating to the comparative study referred to in part 2 of the applicant's request on the basis that such records are not held by the Department within the meaning of section 2(5) of the Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Institute to refuse access to the information sought under section 37(1)

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the NAS

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of QQI. He found that QQI was not required, under section 10, to provide the statements of reasons sought.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to the information sought under section 42(m)(i) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the HSE. He found that the HSE was not justified in redacting certain information relating solely to the applicant's minor son or to certain information relating solely to the applicant and her minor son under section 37(1). He found that it was justified in redacting the remaining information at issue under section 37(1)

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of TUSLA and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the request