Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied the IDA’s decision. She affirmed its decision to refuse access to the majority of information in the withheld records under section 35(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She annulled its decision on the remaining information and directed its release.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council’s decision on the ground that it had taken an unduly narrow interpretation of the request. He directed the Council to conduct a fresh decision-making process on the request

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council’s decision.

The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of the CCPC.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council on the basis that the records sought were excluded from the remit of the FOI Act under section 42(m).

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the NMBI. He found that section 37 applied to some information in the report and directed that the remainder of the relevant parts of the report be released.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. He found that no right of access exists to any such records created before the effective date applicable to the Department, i.e. 21 April 1998.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applied in relation to any further records within the scope of the request as made. She found that Pobal was justified in refusing access to parts of records under section 36(1)(b) and, in the case of part of one record under 37(1) of the Act. She found that the public interest did not weigh in favour of granting access to those parts. She annulled Pobal’s decision to refuse access to a small part of one record and directed its release.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Agency's decision. She found that the applicant was not entitled access to withheld information in the records under section 37 of the FOI Act. She found that the public interest in granting the request does not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right to privacy of the various third parties.