Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the BAI's decision. She found that one record should be withheld under section 36(1)(b) on the basis that it contained commercially sensitive information, and that the remaining records should be released.
Date: 29-09-2016
Case Number: 160032
Public Body: The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland
Section of the Act.: s.36
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Hospital's decision that 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to the applicant's request on the basis that the records requested do not exist.
Date: 28-09-2016
Case Number: 160229
Public Body: Beaumont Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.15
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department, but affirmed its refusal of access to the records. She found that the FOI Act does not apply to certain records on the basis of section 42(f). She also found that section 15(1)(a) applies to any further records relevant to the request on the basis that they do not exist or cannot be found after reasonable steps have been taken to look for them. She further found that section 31(1)(a) applies to the withheld parts of some records for which legal professional privilege has been claimed. She found that section 30(1)(c) applies to the withheld information in certain records. She found that section 36(1)(b) applies to a small amount of information in some records. No additional information fell to be released.
Date: 23-09-2016
Case Number: 160022
Public Body: Department of Environment, Community and Local Government
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.36, s.36(1)(b), s.30, s.42
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of EirGrid.
Date: 23-09-2016
Case Number: 160358
Public Body: EirGrid
Section of the Act.: s.38
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. She affirmed its decision that parts of the withheld records are exempt under sections 28(1), 30(1)(c) and 37(1). She annulled the Department's decision that parts of two records containing factual information are exempt and directed it to release those parts identified in the decision on the basis of section 28(3)(a) of the FOI Act
Date: 21-09-2016
Case Number: 160034
Public Body: Department of Finance
Section of the Act.: s.28, s.30, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. She affirmed its decision to refuse access to some records on the basis of section 15(1)(i)(i), section 28(1) and section 30(1)(c) of the FOI Act. She annulled the decision to refuse access to records 8, 13 (part) and 17 (part) and directed their release.
Date: 21-09-2016
Case Number: 160043
Public Body: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.28, s.30
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the HSE's decision. She found that the withholding of certain records was justified in relation to records already in the public domain, under section 15(1)(d) of the FOI Act. She affirmed its decision to withhold the majority of the records, under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. She annulled its decision to withhold the remaining records and directed their release
Date: 21-09-2016
Case Number: 160024
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(d), s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled TUSLA's decision in this case and directed that a fresh decision-making process be undertaken in respect of the original request.
Date: 21-09-2016
Case Number: 160233
Public Body: TUSLA Child & Family Agency
Section of the Act.: s.15
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of UCD to refuse access to the withheld records on the basis of section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She also found that further records which may exist are held by a separate entity and are not held or under the control of UCD as required by section 2(5) of the FOI Act
Date: 21-09-2016
Case Number: 160071
Public Body: University College Dublin
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of Revenue. She affirmed Revenue's decision to refuse access to a record of internal communications involving the Revenue Solicitors Office (RSO) and the Revenue Legislation Services (RLO) under section 31(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She found that section 31(1)(a) also applied to a Report to the Appeals Committee. She annulled Revenue's decision in relation to the remaining records at issue and directed their release subject to the redaction of a private mobile telephone number from one of the records concerned.
Date: 20-09-2016
Case Number: 160002
Public Body: Office of the Revenue Commissioners
Section of the Act.: s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.31(1)(c),