Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied the Department’s decision. She annulled its decision on the records and directed their release. She found that it was justified in refusing access to any further records under section 15(1)(a)

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Institute’s decision to refuse access to any further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. She found that its refusal of access was justified under section 37(1) and section 37(6) on the basis that if certain records are held they would contain the personal information of individual(s) other than the applicant and his minor children. She affirmed the decision of the Department to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records under section 37(6) of the FOI Act. She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the privacy rights of other individuals.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department to refuse access to further relevant records on the basis that any further relevant records would have been created before the effective date of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator varied OSI’s decision. While he affirmed its decision to refuse access to additional records relating to the applicant’s property under section 15(1)(a), he annulled its decision in respect the request for records relating to a neighbouring property and directed OSI to conduct a fresh decision-making process in respect of that part.

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE had failed to consider the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (Section 37(8)) Regulations 2016 when processing the request. He annulled the HSE’s decision and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant's request having due regard to the relevant Regulations.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council’s decision. In particular, he found that section 11(9) of the FOI Act did not apply and that the Council did not hold the file within the meaning of the Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse access to the records sought under section 37(1).

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Hospital’s decision. She found that the number of patients enrolled in the study is exempt under section 36(1)(b) and that the public interest does not weigh in favour of its disclosure. She found that information identifying the principal researchers is not exempt under sections 36(1)(b) or 39(1)(b) but that section 37(1) applies. She found that the public interest in upholding the right to privacy outweighed the public interest in granting that part of the request.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. He found that the Department was not required to consider if relevant records are held by PDST on the ground that such records, if they exist, are not held by or under the control of the Department. He also found that the Department had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records.