Summary: The Commissioner found that the Department had not justified its decision to refuse access to the records. He annulled the Department's decision and directed the release of the records.
Date: 19-02-2015
Case Number: 140074
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Information Commissioner decided that it was not necessary to make findings on the withheld employer names because the Department had, albeit inadvertently, released those names to the applicant under the FOI Act. Neither was it necessary to make a decision on the withheld Company ID field insofar as it concerned employers whose names the Department had intentionally released. This aspect of the review was settled following an offer by the Department to match the names concerned to details it had already released concerning the internships advertised by those employers. The Commissioner annulled the refusal, and directed the release of, the details within the Company ID field insofar as it concerned the remaining employers, on the basis that the Department had not justified its refusal of the details concerned.
Date: 19-02-2015
Case Number: 120314
Public Body: Department of Social Protection
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Council was justified in its decision to withhold the name requested on the ground that section 23(1)(b) of the FOI Act applies.
Date: 18-02-2015
Case Number: 140289
Public Body: Wexford County Council
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE's decision.
Date: 18-02-2015
Case Number: 140303
Public Body: HSE South
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to the withheld information under sections 28(1) and 28(5B) of the FOI Act.
Date: 16-02-2015
Case Number: 140249
Public Body: HSE South
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Agency was justified in deciding to refuse access to the records sought by the applicant on the basis of sections 28(1) and 28(5B) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Agency.
Date: 16-02-2015
Case Number: 140337
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was not justified in its decision to refuse to amend records under section 17 of the FOI Act. He annulled the decision of the HSE and directed that the records be amended.
Date: 13-02-2015
Case Number: 140039
Public Body: HSE West
Section of the Act.: s.17, s.17(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Agency in relation to part 1 of the request and directed the Agency to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of the records captured by that part of the request. He varied the decision of the Agency in relation to part 2 and he directed part release of the record at issue.
Date: 11-02-2015
Case Number: 140185
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.:
Summary: Although the Institute had provided the applicant with statements of reasons in respect of all 16 aspects of her section 18 application, the Senior Investigator found that she was entitled to a statement only in respect of five aspects of her application. The Senior Investigator found the statements issued to the applicant by the Institute to be adequate insofar as they relate to those aspects of her application that were valid for the purposes of section 18.
Date: 06-02-2015
Case Number: 140011
Public Body: Institute of Technology Carlow
Section of the Act.: s.18
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision to release records in accordance with the provisions of section 28 of the FOI Act.
Date: 28-01-2015
Case Number: 140263
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.: s.26,