Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council's decision to refuse to release additional relevant records under section 15(1)(a) on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.
Date: 29-08-2017
Case Number: 170212
Public Body: Galway County Council
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Department and directed the release of the records concerned.
Date: 29-08-2017
Case Number: 170255
Public Body: Department of Social Protection
Section of the Act.: s.29, s.29(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of NUIG and directed the release of additional information to the applicant. She affirmed NUIG's decision to refuse to release the remainder of the information at issue on the basis of sections 29(1) and 30(1)(c) of the FOI Act.
Date: 28-08-2017
Case Number: 170199
Public Body: National University of Ireland, Galway
Section of the Act.: s.29, s.30, s.36, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Hospital and directed the release of the records concerned.
Date: 25-08-2017
Case Number: 170160
Public Body: Mater Misericordiae Hospital Limited
Section of the Act.: s.36
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department by directing the release of the records concerned subject to the redaction on the basis of section 37(1) of the FOI Act of identifying details of third party private individuals referred to therein.
Date: 25-08-2017
Case Number: 170173
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.32, s.35, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's refusal to fully grant the request. She found that the applicant was not entitled to access to records concerning her minor children under the provisions of S.I. No. 218 of 2016 (i.e. the Regulations made under section 37(8) of the FOI Act). She found these and all other withheld records to contain personal information that was exempt under section 37 of the FOI Act. She further 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.
Date: 25-08-2017
Case Number: 170236
Public Body: The Child and Family Agency (TUSLA)
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's refusal to grant the applicant's section 9 application. She was not satisfied that the evidence available was sufficient for her to conclude that the comments in the records held by TUSLA are incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Date: 25-08-2017
Case Number: 170259
Public Body: The Child and Family Agency (TUSLA)
Section of the Act.: s.9
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed that the information given to the applicant by DIT was an adequate statement of reasons for the purposes of compliance with section 10 of the FOI Act.
Date: 25-08-2017
Case Number: 170342
Public Body: Dublin Institute of Technology
Section of the Act.: s.10
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Agency's decision. She affirmed the Agency's decision to refuse access to a number of records under section 31(1)(a) of the Act on the basis of legal professional privilege, with the exception of its refusal of access to five records, which she directed for release. She decided that section 31(1)(b) applied to certain records relating to Court proceedings subject to the in camera rule. She affirmed the Agency's decision to refuse access to the remaining withheld records on the basis that section 37(1) of the FOI Act applied, since the withheld information concerns the personal information of third parties as well as that of the applicant. She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the privacy rights of individuals other than the applicant. She affirmed its refusal of access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
Date: 23-08-2017
Case Number: 170141
Public Body: TUSLA: Child and Family Agency
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.31, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department?s refusal to grant access to the five withheld records under section 33(3)(c)(ii). She found the Department to have justified its decision that they contained information communicated in confidence between the State and the Commission concerning the Notice and related infringement proceedings.
Date: 21-08-2017
Case Number: 170305
Public Body: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Section of the Act.: s.33