Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior investigator varied the decision of the NTMA. He directed the release of a record to which the NTMA had refused access under section 30(1)(b) of the Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Council. He found that section 32(1)(a)(iv) did not apply to the records. He found that section 37 applied to a small amount of personal information in the records.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Department's decision. She found that the inspection reports were not exempt. She directed that access be granted to the records subject to the redaction of certain details as consented to by the applicant.

The Senior Investigator affirmed Tusla’s decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE’s decision to redact, under section 37(1) of the Act, certain information from the records released.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the OPW. She found that it was justified in refusing access to the records sought on the basis of section 15(1)(a) of the Act and that it was not required to go beyond reasonable steps, as set out in section 17(4) of the FOI Act, to fulfil the applicant’s request.

The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision. She affirmed its decision on two records under section 35(1) of the FOI Act. She annulled its decision on the third record and directed its release.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Department’s decision and directed it consider the applicant’s request afresh.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decisions of the HSE to refuse to amend the records in the manner sought by the applicant