Cinneadh
Mr. X ESB Networks DAC (EBSNDAC)
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-159936-F5P5S0
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-159936-F5P5S0
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the EBSNDAC was justified in refusing part 4 of the applicant’s request which sought records relating to the legal status of EBSNDAC on the basis of section 15(1)(d) and 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act, and part 7 of the applicant’s request which sought certain corporate records on the basis of section 15(1)(c) and 15(1)(d) of the FOI Act.
27 May 2026
In a request dated 1 February 2025, the applicant made a request to EBSNDAC seeking access to records containing seven categories of information. On foot of engagement with EBSNDAC, the applicant agreed to refine the wording of his request to the following:
1. Please provide the addresses of the current registered and/or head office of:
i. ESB Networks DAC
ii. The operational and functional activities carried out under the name “ESB Networks”
iii. “ESB Networks”
2. Please provide the current official website addresses of:
i. ESB Networks DAC
ii. The operational and functional activities carried out under the name “ESB Networks”
iii. “ESB Networks”
3. Please provide the names of the individuals and/or entities with current responsibility for the management and control of:
i. ESB Networks DAC
ii. The operational and functional activities carried out under the name “ESB Networks”
4. Please provide the legal status of what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks” specifically: whether “ESB Networks” is:
i. A registered company,
ii. A registered business name or trading name of another company,
iii. Any other form of legal entity.
5. Please provide the current number of personnel working for and within:
i. ESB Networks DAC
ii. “ESB Networks”
6. Please provide the number of personnel working within what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks” who are not under the control and management of ESB Networks DAC, and the identities of those personnel.
7. Please provide the corporate structure, including decision making structure, the hierarchy of management, reporting lines and chains of authority, between ESB Networks DAC and what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks ”
i. Official records
ii. Corporate governance documents
iii. Organisational charts
iv. Internal policies detailing governance and operational structures.
EBSNDAC issued its decision on 3 March 2026, wherein it part-granted the request. Of relevance to this review, it refused part 4 of the request under sections 15(1)(d) and 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act and it refused part 7 of the request under sections 15(1)(c) and 15(1)(d). On the same date, the applicant sought an internal review of that decision. EBSNDAC issued its internal review decision on 21 March 2025, wherein it varied its reasons for its refusal of part 4 of the request under section 15(1)(g). It also varied its decision to refuse part 7 of the request under section 15(1)(d) and released an excerpt from an organisational chart. On 20 June 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of EBSNDAC’s decision in respect of parts 4 and 7 of his request.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence between the applicant and EBSNDAC as outlined above and to the correspondence between this Office and both parties on the matter. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
I note that in his submissions to this Office, the applicant argued that in his correspondence with ESBNDAC concerning the scope of his request, he “reserved [his] position ”. I am satisfied, having considered the relevant correspondence between the parties, that the applicant accepted the revised wording of his request as proposed by ESBNDAC and as set out above.
Accordingly, the scope of this Office’s review is concerned solely whether ESBNDAC was justified in refusing part 4 of the applicant’s request, as described above, under sections 15(1)(d) and/or 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act, and in refusing part 7 under sections 15(1)(c) and/or 15(1)(d).
Part 4
Part 4 of the applicant’s request was for records containing details of “the legal status of what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks”, i.e. whether it is a registered company, a registered business name or trading name of another company, or any other form of legal entity. ESBNDAC refused that part under sections 15(1)(d) and 15(1)(g).
Section 15(1)(d)
Section 15(1)(d) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant a request where the information sought is already in the public domain. In its original decision, ESBNDAC said the information sought is in the public domain, including in a decision of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI) involving a company of which ESBNDAC said the applicant is a director, namely Killross Properties Limited v ESB Networks Business Unit (CEI/17/0001). In its internal review decision, ESBNDAC said the information is also available at www.esbnetworks.ie .
In his application for internal review, the applicant said the OCEI Case cited did not address the specific legal status of ESB Networks and “merely asserts prior disclosure without evidence ”. In his submissions to this Office, he said the decision did not contain a finding as to the legal status of “ESB Networks ” as a registered company, trading name, or legal entity. He said that the focus in that AIE request was on whether “ESB Networks ” was a public authority. He said the website http://www.esbnetworks.ie refers to “ESB Networks” as a business unit of ESB, while also stating in its Terms and Conditions:
"ESB Networks_" means ESB Networks DAC, a company incorporated in Ireland (registration number 465172) having its registered office at Three Gateway, East Wall Road, Dublin 3 D03 R583, Ireland."
He said this statement as to the “definition of “ESB Networks” meaning “ESB Networks DAC” as a company creates ambiguity in relation to the legal status of “ESB Networks” and uncertainty as to whether “ESB Networks” remains a part of ESB as indicated in the CEI/17/001 decision or whether “ESB Networks” is not part of ESB Networks DAC”.
The applicant said his request seeks clarity on the complex relationship between ESB Networks DAC (the licensed Distribution System Operator) and the “ESB Networks” business unit. He referenced a Court of Appeal judgment wherein the Court referred to a “miasma of confusion” over certain roles, responsibilities of the relevant entities.
He said the conflicting position as evidenced in the extract from the terms and conditions page of the www.esbnetworks.ie website defining “ESB Networks ” as meaning “ESB Networks DAC ” justifies the request. He said the information sought is not “clearly and unambiguously” in the public domain and that no record meeting the terms of the request has been identified or disclosed. He said the legal or operational status of “ESB Networks ” may have changed in the almost eight years since the decision in CEI/17/0001. He said FOI requests are not precluded by past OCEI decisions, and he argued that a requester is entitled to seek updated, current information.
I should say at the outset that it seems to me that the applicant is already aware of the information he is seeking at Part 4 of his request. In essence, he has argued that he is seeking clarity on the complex relationship between ESBNDAC and the “ESB Networks business unit ”. It seems to me that this precise matter was clarified in the Court of Appeal proceedings cited by the applicant in his submissions (The Electricity Supply Board and Eirgrid PLC and Kilross Properties Limited). I note that the company the applicant represents was the appellant in that case. In its judgment, the Court explained that an affidavit had been sworn on behalf of ESB and Eirgrid in which it the following was explained:
“As a condition of its TAO licence ESB was required to designate an internal division of its business to carry out its TAO functions. Accordingly ESB designated a division of its business called ESB Networks for this purpose. (Indeed much of the confusion in relation to this issue is caused because there is an internal division of ESB called “ESB Networks” and a separate company called “ESB Networks Ltd”.)”
The Court went on to state the following:
“I am satisfied, therefore, that the submissions of the appellant in this regard are, in effect, mischaracterising or misinterpreting the legal reality of what was going on between ESB, Eirgrid, ESB Networks Business Unit and ESB Networks Limited. Given the degree of overlap between names, functions and agreements it is hardly any surprise that there should be such a miasma of confusion over the roles, functions and legal responsibilities of the various parties involved. However I am satisfied that there is a clear legal distinction between ESB and ESB Networks Limited and that there is a clear distinction between the ESB Networks Business Unit (as a division within ESB) and ESB Networks Limited. It is also clear that ESB and ESB Networks Limited carry out different functions under the regulatory structure now in place in Ireland. It is clear that ESB and ESB Networks Limited have entered into various agreements required by the regulatory structure and it is also clear that ESB and ESB Networks Limited have entered into an Asset Management Agreement whereby ESB Networks Limited manage the ESB Networks Business Unit of ESB for and on behalf of ESB.”
While this calls into question the bona fides of the applicant’s contention that he requires clarity on the relationship between the entities concerned, I think it would be useful to examine ESBNDAC’s claim that the information sought is publicly available.
On this point, it is important to note at the outset that section 15(1)(d) does not require a particular record containing the information sought in a request to be in the public domain for the section to apply. Rather, it requires that the information sought be in the public domain. In other words, if a requester seeks access to a record containing certain information and that information is in the public domain, the FOI body can refuse the request under section 15(1)(d).
The applicant has suggested that the website www.esbnetworks.ie is ambiguous as to whether or not ESB Networks remains part of ESB in circumstances where it is described as a business unit of ESB. As the Commissioner for Environmental Information explained in his decision on Case CEI/17/001 as cited by ESBNDAC, the statutory electricity supply regime in place in Ireland is complex. The Commissioner set out details of licences granted by the then Commissions of Energy Regulation for four key functions of the Irish electricity supply industry as follows:
• A Transmission Asset Owner (TAO) licence was granted to ESB. This licence required ESB to designate a ring-fenced internal division of ESB, separate from all other parts of its business, to carry outs its TAO functions. ESB did this and calls that division ‘ESB Networks Business Unit’ – ESBNBU.
• A Transmission System Operator (TSO) licence was granted to EirGrid plc. EirGrid is a State-owned entity that is entirely separate from the ESB group of companies.
• A Distribution Asset Owner (DAO) licence was granted to ESB. This licence required ESB to designate an internal ring-fenced division to carry out its functions as owner of the distribution system. ESB did this and calls that division ‘ESB Networks Business Unit’ – ESBNBU.
• A Distribution System Operator (DSO) licence was granted to ESB Networks DAC (ESBNDAC)(formerly ESB Networks Limited). While this is a separate legal entity to ESB, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of ESB.
The applicant is aware of the Commissioner’s decision, as a representative of the company that made the request under review. As I have outlined above, the applicant’s request was for records containing details of “the legal status of what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks”, i.e. whether it is a registered company, a registered business name or trading name of another company, or any other form of legal entity. As also outlined above, the applicant himself referenced the fact that the website www.esbnetworks.ie states that “"ESB Networks " means ESB Networks DAC”. I also note that in his submissions, the applicant said that Case CEI/17/0001 dealt with whether “ESB Networks” is a public authority under the AIE Regulations. He said it determined that, at the time, ESB Networks (Business Unit) was not a separate legal entity to ESB. He said there was no finding in CEI/17/001 regarding the legal status of “ESB Networks” as a registered company, trading name or legal entity.
Accordingly, it seems to me that the applicant wishes to obtain details of the legal status of ESBNDAC, in circumstances where he is already aware the ESB Network Business Unit is an internal division of ESB. The www.esbnetworks.ie website contains a clear statement of that status, in my view. As the applicant himself cited, the website states that ESB Networks DAC is “a company incorporated in Ireland (registration number 465172) ”. It states that it is a ringfenced subsidiary within the ESB Group. The Companies Registration Office website, www.cro.ie, identifies the company with the registered name “_ESB Networks Designated Activity Company (DAC) as a “Designated Activity Company (limited by shares )”. I am therefore satisfied that the information sought by the applicant is already in the public domain and I find that ESBNDAC was justified in refusing part 4 of the request under section 15(1)(d).
Having found section 15(1)(d) to apply, I have no need to consider whether section 15(1)(g) also applies.
Part 7
At part 7 of his request, the applicant sought records concerning “the corporate structure, including decision making structure, the hierarchy of management, reporting lines and chains of authority, between ESB Networks DAC and what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks”. He specifically referenced official records, corporate governance documents, organisational charts, and internal policies detailing governance and operational structures. ESBNDAC refused that part under sections 15(1)(c) and 15(1)(d). I will first consider the applicability of section 15(1)(d).
In its original decision, ESBNDAC said the relationship between ESBNDAC and ESB (including in relation to the ESB Networks business unit), and the management and control of the operational and functional activities carried out by the ESB Networks business unit, is governed by the regulatory agreements in place, copies of which it said were already in the applicant’s possession having previously been provided. It listed those agreements as follows:
1. Networks Management Personnel Agreement dated 22 December 2008 between ESB and ESB Networks DAC (then ESB Networks Limited)
2. Regulation 6 Personnel Agreement dated 22 December 2008 between ESB and ESB Networks DAC (then ESB Networks Limited)
3. Operating Agreement dated 22 December 2008 between ESB and ESB Networks DAC
(then ESB Networks Limited)
4. Asset Management Agreement dated 22 December 2008 between ESB and ESB Networks DAC (then ESB Networks Limited)
In its original decision, ESB Networks also said that the information sought is in the public domain. To that end, it included a link to the www.esbnetworks.ie web page. The link no longer appears to lead to a valid page. However, I have reviewed the website itself and note that a number of records relating to its governance codes and policies are accessible through the https://www.esbnetworks.ie/about-us/company/governance web page.
In its internal review decision wherein it noted that the applicant had clarified in his correspondence concerning the scope of his request that “one record addressing each part of the request would suffice ”, ESBNDAC said it was affirming its decision to refuse his request for a record of the “corporate structure…..between ESB Networks DAC and what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks”, under section 15(1)(d) on the basis that the information sought is in the public domain on the www.esbnetworks.ie website where it is stated that ESB Networks DAC is an ESB subsidiary company. It said that insofar as part 7 requests a record of the “decision making structure, the hierarchy of management, reporting lines and chains of authority, between ESB Networks DAC and what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks” ”, ESBNDAC said it was granting this part of the request and provided an excerpt from an organisational chart showing the reporting line of the senior managers employed by ESB Networks DAC and the managing director of ESBNDAC. It said all of the personnel employed by ESB and currently assigned to the ESB Networks business unit report to the senior managers shown on that chart.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant said that the cited webpage vaguely states ESB Networks DAC is an ESB subsidiary, not a detailed record of corporate structure, hierarchy, or reporting lines. He said his request sought specific records (e.g., charts, policies), not public overviews. Regarding records cited by ESB Networks as having been already provided to the applicant, he said that the 2008 agreements may not reflect the 2025 structure. He also said that they do not fully address sub-parts (e.g., charts, internal policies), and that their prior provision does not exempt ESB Networks DAC from providing current records. He further said that the provided chart excerpt is incomplete, addressing only senior managers’ reporting lines, and not the full hierarchy or chains of authority between ESB Networks DAC and “ESB Networks .”
As I have outlined above, I am satisfied, having considered the relevant correspondence between the parties, that the applicant accepted the revised wording of his request as proposed by ESBNDAC and as set out above. I am also satisfied that he clearly indicated that that one record addressing each part of the request would suffice. It is worth noting that under section 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act, a request for access to a record must contain sufficient particulars in relation to the information concerned to enable the FOI body to identify the record sought by the taking of reasonable steps. If a requester wishes to obtain access to a specific record, the request should contain sufficient particulars to allow the FOI body to identify the specific record sought.
In this case, I am satisfied that ESBNDAC reasonably determined that by granting access to the excerpt from the organisational chart, it met that part of the request seeking details of the decision making structure, the hierarchy of management, reporting lines and chains of authority, between ESBNDAC and what is commonly referred to as “ESB Networks”. While I note the applicant’s contention that his request of one record per category should include governance and policies, I have noted above that records relating to ESBNDAC’s governance codes and policies are accessible on its website at https://www.esbnetworks.ie/about-us/company/governance . On the matter of his concerns that the website vaguely states that ESBNDAC is an ESB subsidiary, the fact that the publicly available information does not contain the level of detail the applicant might wish it to contain does not mean that the information is not publicly available. If there was more specific information the applicant wanted that is not publicly available, it was open to him to make a specific request that contained sufficient particulars to allow ESBNDAC to identify the specific record sought.
Finally, on the matter of the applicant’s comments that the agreements ESBNDAC referenced may not reflect the 2025 structure and that their prior provisions does not prevent it from providing current records, he has presented no evidence to suggest that they do not reflect the later structure, nor did he suggest that he no longer has access to the records previously released and that he requires fresh copies of those records.
In all of the circumstances, apart from the records ESBNDAC has provided to the applicant, either previously or on foot of the request at issue, I am satisfied that it was justified in refusing access to any further records on the ground that they are publicly available and that section 15(1)(d) applies. Having so found, I do not need to consider the applicability of section 15(1)(c) to part 7.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm ESBNDAC’s decision. I find that it was justified in refusing parts 4 and 7 of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(d) of the Act on the ground that the information sought is already in the public domain.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator