Summary: The Commissioner varied the Department's decision. He found that it was not justified in refusing access to further records under section 15(1)(a) and directed the Department to ask the former Taoiseach if additional records within the scope of the applicant's FOI request exist and if so, to retrieve them so that the Department can consider and make a decision on any such records in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act. He affirmed its decision on certain records under sections 28, 33, 36, 37 and 40 of the FOI Act. He annulled its decision on the remaining records and directed their release.
Date: 17-08-2018
Case Number: 170175
Public Body: Department of the Taoiseach
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Commissioner annulled the decision of the Department. He found that the Department was not justified in refusing access to records under section 15(1)(a). He annulled the decision to effectively refuse access to records which came to light in the course of the review and directed the Department to undertake a fresh decision making process on those records. In addition, the Commissioner directed the Department to ask the former Minister whether she holds additional records within the scope of the applicant's FOI request and if so, to retrieve them so that the Department can make a decision on any such records in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.
Date: 16-08-2018
Case Number: 170315
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.15
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department to refuse the request under section 15(1)(g) on the ground that the requests are vexatious.
Date: 16-08-2018
Case Number: 180146
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(g),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE's refusal of the request. She found that the report contains personal information that is exempt under section 37 of the FOI Act. She found that the applicants were not entitled to it further to Statutory Instrument No. 218 of 2016 (i.e. the Regulations made under section 37(8) of the FOI Act) or the other exceptions to section 37(1). She found that the public interest in granting the request does not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right to privacy of the applicants' son.
Date: 16-08-2018
Case Number: 180221
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1), s.37(8),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of TUSLA. He found that it was justified in withholding the information at issue under sections 37(1) and 42(m)(i).
Date: 15-08-2018
Case Number: 180180
Public Body: TUSLA: Child and Family Agency
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1), s.42,
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the PAS to refuse access to the scoring key relating to a selection exercise and two documents prepared by the applicant as part of that exercise under section 30(1)(a) and to refuse access to any further records under section 15(1)(a) on the ground that no further relevant records exist.
Date: 14-08-2018
Case Number: 180045
Public Body: Public Appointments Service
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.30, s.30(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied HIQA?s decision. She affirmed its decision to refuse access to certain parts of the submission file on the basis that section 35(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to those parts. She annulled HIQA's decision to refuse access to the remaining parts of the submission file and directed their release.
Date: 14-08-2018
Case Number: 180147
Public Body: Health Information and Quality Authority
Section of the Act.: s.35
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed Revenue's decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to the applicant's request insofar as it relates to additional records. She found that section 31(1)(a) of the Act applies to two records as these records qualify for legal professional privilege. She found that sections 37(1), 36(1)(b), or 30(1)(a) apply to the remaining records to which access was refused in part, as release of these records would disclose personal information of third parties or commercially sensitive information or could prejudice the effectiveness of tests or examinations used by Revenue in the conduct of its vehicle registration function. She found that the public interest would, on balance, be better served by refusing the request insofar as it relates to the withheld parts of the records.
Date: 10-08-2018
Case Number: 180017
Public Body: Office of the Revenue Commissioners
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.30, s.31, s.36, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Hospital.
Date: 10-08-2018
Case Number: 180139
Public Body: The Rotunda Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Hospital and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant's request.
Date: 10-08-2018
Case Number: 180200
Public Body: Mater Misericordiae Hospital Limited
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(g),