OIC Decisions
Decisions issued from January 2022 onwards can be found here. Earlier decisions will be uploaded in the coming months. If you require an earlier decision then please email us at info@oic.ie
Decisions issued from January 2022 onwards can be found here. Earlier decisions will be uploaded in the coming months. If you require an earlier decision then please email us at info@oic.ie
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of sections 10(1)(a) and 28 of the FOI Act. Accordingly, she affirmed the decision of the HSE.
Date: 17-10-2014
Case Number: 120136
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.8, s.8(4), s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.28, s.28(1), s.28(2), s.28(5), s.28(5)(a), s.28(5)(b), s.28(6), s.34, s.34(2), s.13
Summary: The Information Commissioner varied the Council's decision. He did not accept that the Council had justified its contention that the relevant withheld records continued to attract what is generally referred to as "litigation privilege" but accepted that certain of them attracted "legal advice privilege". He thus found such records to be exempt under section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He directed the release of the remaining records (except for any personal or joint personal information therein) and, under section 34(13) of the FOI Act, specified the period of time within which effect shall be given to this element of his decision as within 10 working days of the expiration of the time for the bringing of an appeal to the High Court. He annulled the Council's effective refusal of any relevant records held by its legal advisors, and directed that it consider this aspect of the applicant's request afresh, in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.
Date: 09-10-2014
Case Number: 120210
Public Body: Meath County Council
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(1)(a), s.22(1)(b), s.34, s.34(9)(a)(iii), s.34(13),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Board was justified in its decisions to refuse the applicant's requests pursuant to section 10(1)(e) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Board in relation to the three requests.
Date: 03-10-2014
Case Number: 140122, 140123, 140124
Public Body: Legal Aid Board
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.10(1)(e),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Institute was justified in its decision to refuse the applicant's request pursuant to section 21(1)(b) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Institute in relation to the request.
Date: 03-10-2014
Case Number: 140150
Public Body: Waterford Institute of Technology
Section of the Act.: s.21, s.21(1)(b),
Summary: The Information Commissioner annulled the NSCDA's refusal of the request. He found that NSCDA was not justified in its decision to refuse the requests under section 10(1)(e) of the FOI Act. He annulled the decisions and directed the NSCDA to make a fresh decision on both of the requests
Date: 03-10-2014
Case Number: 130027 and 130058
Public Body: National Sports Campus Development Authority
Section of the Act.: s.8, s.8(4), s.10, s.10(1)(c), s.10(1)(e), s.34, s.34(2), s.34(12)(b),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Hospital was justified in its decision to refuse access to the third party information in the records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 28(1) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Hospital.
Date: 03-10-2014
Case Number: 140041
Public Body: Beaumont Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.28, s.28(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the DJEI's decision to refuse access to the records at issue under sections 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the FOI Act. However, she directed the release of factual information contained in the records having regard to section 19(3)(a) of the Act.
Date: 02-10-2014
Case Number: 130334
Public Body: Department of Jobs Enterprise and Innovation
Section of the Act.: s.19, s.19(1)(a), s.19(1)(c), s.19(3)(a),
Summary: The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in its refusal of a statement of reasons on the grounds that the applicant had not demonstrated a material interest as required under the provisions of section 18 of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Department.
Date: 29-09-2014
Case Number: 140135
Public Body: The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Section of the Act.: s.18, s.18(1), s.18(5), s.18(6),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Revenue's decision as described above.
Date: 29-09-2014
Case Number: 130187
Public Body: The Revenue Commissioners
Section of the Act.: s.21, s.22, s.26
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the University's refusal to amend the records in question under section 17 of the FOI Act
Date: 29-09-2014
Case Number: 130197
Public Body: University of Limerick
Section of the Act.: s.17