Decisions of the Information Commissioner

Whether the Department was justified under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act in refusing access to a record relating to the role of an Appeals Board

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. She found that the request for legal advice was exempt from release under section 31(1)(a) of the FOI Act, but found that the attachments to this request were not exempt and directed their release subject to redaction of personal information of a third party under section 37(1).

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the ORNL.

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's decision under sections 15 and 37 of the FOI Act. She found that, having taken reasonable steps to search for any further records, TUSLA's decision was justified on the ground that no further records can be found. She further found that records withheld were exempt as their release would disclose personal information of individuals other than the requesters.

The Senior Investigator found that the decision to refuse access to the redacted parts of the record was justified on the basis of section 36(1)(c) of the FOI Act.

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)