Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE's decision to refuse access to the information sought
Date: 17-01-2017
Case Number: 160452
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of UCD
Date: 17-01-2017
Case Number: 160377
Public Body: University College Dublin
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.
Date: 16-01-2016
Case Number: 160389
Public Body: Wicklow County Council
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision. While he affirmed the decision of AGS to refuse access to four reports in their entirety and to one in part, he directed the partial release of one report and additional parts of one report to which access had been granted in part.
Date: 13-01-2017
Case Number: 160257
Public Body: An Garda Siochana
Section of the Act.: s.6, s.32, s.35, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision to grant access to certain records with the redaction of the applicant's name and address.
Date: 11-01-2017
Case Number: 150255
Public Body: Department of Defence
Section of the Act.: s.28, s.29
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He directed the Department to release the names of the panel members but affirmed the refusal of details of the panel placings.
Date: 09-01-2017
Case Number: 160341
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied EirGrid?s decision. She found that, with the exception of one part of the request, the records requested do not fall within Schedule 1, Part 1 (i) of the Act. She found that section 31(1)(a) applies to exempt two records related to the Agreement. She found that section 36(1)(b) applies to exempt two parts of the Agreement. She directed release of the remainder of the Agreement and one record related to the Agreement. She directed that a fresh decision making process be undertaken in relation to 17 records which came to light during the review as well as invoice records which EirGrid agreed to release, if these have not already been released to the applicant.
Date: 03-01-2017
Case Number: 160220
Public Body: Eirgrid
Section of the Act.: s.31, s.35, s.36, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the OPW. While he affirmed the decision of the OPW to refuse access to records 2, 4, and 5, he directed the release of records 1 and 7.
Date: 03-01-2017
Case Number: 160248
Public Body: Office of Public Works
Section of the Act.: s.36
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied Tusla's decision. He found that Tusla was justified under sections 11(4), 15(1)(a) and 31(2) of the FOI Act in its decision to refuse parts of the request, but also directed that Tusla undertake a fresh decision making process in relation to emails that were located in the course of this review.
Date: 03-01-2017
Case Number: 160234
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(c), s.31, s.31(2), s.11
Summary: Conducted in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act by Stephen Rafferty, Senior Investigator, who is authorised by the Information Commissioner to conduct this review
Date: 03-01-2017
Case Number: 160238
Public Body: TUSLA: Child and Family Agency
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(c), s.31, s.31(2), s.42, s.42(e)(ii), s.11, s.37