Long Form Decisions, Office of the Information Commissioner, Ireland

Lo-Call: 1890 253 238

Fax: (01) 639 5674

08.04.2011 Messrs X and Kerry County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 090296

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council to grant the request and found that some records and parts of records should be withheld from release.

15.06.2011 Ms X and Department of Health and Children ("the Department"), Decision No. 090315

The Senior Investigator found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse the access requested. He affirmed the decision of the Department in the case.

23.12.2010 Ms X & Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food , Decision No. 100110

The Senior Investigator decided to vary the Department's decision and found that the records should be released in the public interest with the exception of certain specified details.

13.01.2011 Mr. Seamus Feely, Secretary General, Irish Pharmacy Union (IPU)& Health Service Executive (HSE). , Decision No. 080246

The Commissioner varied the decision of the HSE by affirming it in part and annulling it in part. She accepted that a confidential legal opinion, an unredacted version of the Indecon report entitled "Review of Pharmacy Wholesale Margins", and three other records at issue containing information of a confidential and sensitive nature were exempt, primarily under section 23(1)(a)(ii) of the FOI Act. Having regard to section 34(12)(b) of the FOI Act, she found that the claims for exemption made by the HSE in relation to the remaining record at issue, record number 2 of File 2, were not justified in this case and directed its release accordingly.

21.01.2011 Mr X & Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources ("the Department"), Decision No. 080184

The Commissioner's authorised official affirmed the Department's refusal of the records. He found that the record requested did not exist as at the date of receipt of the request, because of changes made to the database since the compilation of the map concerned, under which circumstances section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act applied. He also found that the FOI Act did not require the Department to re-create the database as it stood on the date that the map was compiled, and that even if it did, section 10(1)(c) of the FOI Act would apply.

30.12.2010 AB Solicitors representing Clients X and Y ("the Applicants") & The Health Information and Quality Authority ("HIQA"), Decision No. 100184

The Senior Investigator found that HIQA was justified under section 23(1)(a)(i) and section 23(1)(b) in its decision to refuse the request. She affirmed the decision of HIQA.

31.12.2010 Mr X & Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 090194

The Senior Investigator found that the Council is justified in its decision to refuse access to the records on the basis of sections 6 and 10(1)(a) of the FOI Acts. She affirmed the decision of the Council.

10.11.2010 E Solicitors on behalf of Company A ("the Applicant") & Department of Communication, Energy and Natural Resources ("the Department") , Decision No. 080183

The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision and decided that parts of the record should be released.

02.12.2010 Mr X & Health Service Executive South ("the HSE"), Decision No. 100039

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is justified in its decision under section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act to refuse access to additional records on the basis that no further records exist.

13.12.2010 Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors ("the AGSI") & Department of Justice and Law Reform (the Department), Decision No. 090169

The Commissioner did not accept that the records at issue were exempt under any of the provisions cited, with the exception of section 20(1) of the FOI Act. She considered, however, that the public interest warranted the release of the details concerned.

17.12.2010 Ms X ("the Applicant") & Office of the Revenue Commissioners ("Revenue"), Decision No. 100115

The Senior Investigator affirmed Revenue's decision and found that it had satisfied the obligations of the public body on the provision of a statement of reasons under section 18 of the FOI Act.

01.12.2010 A Solicitors on behalf of Mr B & Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 100151

The Commissioner found that the HSE is justified in its decision to refuse access to the records on the basis of section 28(1), section 28(6) and the 2009 Regulations. She affirmed the decision of the HSE.

16.12.2010 Mr X & Louth County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 090258

The Commissioner's authorised official varied the Council's effective decision that all records relevant to the Applicant's request should be withheld. He directed the release of 28 particular invoices along with a further invoice concerning a report. He also directed the release of two items of correspondence that listed the Company's charge-out rates per day per grade of employee, subject to the redaction of those charge-out rates. He directed that the remaining records at issue (28 timesheets that had been attached to the 28 invoices referred to above) be withheld.

23.11.2010 Mr X ("the Applicant") & Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ("the Department"), Decision No. 100009

The Senior Investigator accepted the Department's assertion that the record does not exist and affirmed its decision that section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies.

25.11.2010 Mr and Mrs X & Health Service Executive South ("the HSE"), Decision No. 100210

The Senior Investigator found no basis for directing the HSE to delete the records pursuant to section 17 of the FOI Act. She affirmed the decision of the HSE accordingly.

17.11.2010 Mr X ("the Applicant") & Department of Social and Family Affairs, now Department of Social Protection ("the Department"), Decision No. 100122

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision.

08.10.2010 Mr X ("the Applicant") & Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs ("the Department") , Decision No. 100030

The Senior Investigator affirmed the public body's decision.

12.11.2010 The Phoenix Magazine & Department of Tourism, Culture & Sport, formerly Department of Arts, Sport & Tourism (the Department). , Decision No. 080083

The Commissioner varied the Department's decision and its revised position put forward in the course of the review that the records the subject of the narrowed scope of the review should be released. She found that some records contained the personal information of individuals the subject of the Furlong Report which information is exempt under section 28(1). She found that the public interest in granting the request was not outweighed by the public interest in upholding the right of privacy of the individuals involved except for some details of payments made by the National Library of Ireland to one of the parties concerned. She also directed the release of certain records on the basis that they did not comprise the personal information of the third parties.

12.11.2010 Ms. XX & Health Service Executive (the HSE), Decision No. 090231

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is justified in its decision under section 10(1)(c) of the FOI Act to refuse access to the records sought on the basis that the retrieval and examination of the number of records concerned would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of the work of the HSE.

14.10.2010 Mr. X & Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (the College), Decision No. 100107

The Senior Investigator found that the College is justified in its decision to refuse access to the withheld records on the basis of sections 10(1)(a), and 28(1) of the FOI Act. She affirmed the decision of the College. She further found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right to privacy of other individuals involved.

20.10.2010 Mr. X & Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children (the Hospital) , Decision No. 100166

The Senior Investigator found that the Hospital is justified in its decision under section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act to refuse access to the medical records sought on the basis that such records do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.

22.10.2010 Mr X, Ms Y & Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 100198

The Commissioner found that the HSE's statement of reasons, when taken in conjunction with its letter of 26 February 2009 and the Applicants' meeting with its Social Work Manager, satisfied the requirements of section 18 of the FOI Act. She affirmed the decision of the HSE accordingly.

22.10.2010 R Solicitors on behalf of Mr. Q & Cork County Council (the Council. , Decision No. 100175

The Senior Investigator found that the Council is justified in its decision to refuse the request on the basis of section 23(1)(b) of the FOI Act.

08.10.2010 Mr. XY & Health Service Executive, West (HSE), Decision No. 100174

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is justified in its decision to refuse access to the withheld records on the basis that they are exempt from release under section 28 of the FOI Act. She also found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in protecting privacy rights.

10.09.2010 Mr X & Health Service Executive ("the HSE"), Decision No. 080304

The Commissioner varied the decision of the HSE and found that part of the HSE's decision was justified under section 28 of the FOI Act. She directed the release of record 185-186 with the exception of specified parts which related to the personal information of individuals other than the Applicant and his minor children.

29.09.2010 Mr X & Dublin Institute of Technology ("the Institute"), Decision No. 100061

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Institute's decision and found that it had satisfied the obligations of the public body on the provision of a statement of reasons under section 18 of the FOI Act.

29.09.2010 Ms X & Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (the Department), Decision No. 090185

The Commissioner's authorised official affirmed the refusal of the witness statements, but found them to be exempt under section 23(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act (having been satisfied that their release could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair the prevention, detection or investigation of offences, and/or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders). She also upheld the refusal of the remaining records on the grounds that they were exempt under section 28(1) or were outside the scope of the request in the first place.

10.09.2010 Sunday Times & Office of the Revenue Commissioners (Revenue), Decision No. 090163

The Commissioner affirmed the Revenue's refusal of the records under section 26(1)(b) of the FOI Act.

27.07.2010 The Irish Times & Department of Transport (the Department), Decision No. 060054

The Commissioner accepted that the details at issue, while historic, could enable the calculation of current estimates relating to the various Transport 21 projects and thus would effectively disclose positions relevant to related negotiations. She considered section 21 to apply, accordingly, and that the public interest was best served by withholding the details.

12.08.2010 ABC Ltd & Roscommon County Council (the Council), Decision No. 080284

The Senior Investigator found that the Council is not justified in its decision to refuse access to the bulk of the records under section 27(1)(b) of the FOI Act. She varied the decision of the Council by affirming the decision to withhold those parts of the Report on Tenders which identified the unsuccessful tenderers and parts of an appendix to the Report comprising the successful tenderer's financial, banking and insurance positions. She annulled the decision of the Council in relation to the remaining records and directed their release.

10.08.2010 Mr XYZ & Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 080287

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is not justified in its refusal of access to certain records under various sections of the FOI Act. She varied the decision of the HSE and directed the HSE to release most of the records at issue. She affirmed the HSE's decision in respect of some records which she found it was entitled to withhold under section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act.

09.08.2010 Ms ABC & Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 080143

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is not justified in its refusal of access to certain records but is justified in its refusal of one record. She varied the decision of the HSE by directing the release of letters of complaint concerning the Applicant and her family with the exception of personal information of third parties. She affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to a letter sent to Professor Brendan Drumm by a consultant in March 2007 on the basis that it was exempt under section 21 of the FOI Act. She also found that parts of the record would qualify for exemption under section 28 of the Act.

29.07.2010 Ms X & Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform ("the Department"). , Decision No. 090127

The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision and found that specified records and parts of records should be released.

30.07.2010 The Sunday Times & Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (the Department), Decision No. 100062

The Senior Investigator annulled the Department's decision and found that the records should be released.

12.07.2010 Mr X ("the Applicant")& Kerry County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 090267

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's decision and found that the relevant records should be released.

16.07.2010 Mr X & The Office of the Revenue Commissioners (the Revenue), Decision No. 090081

The Commissioner affirmed the Revenue's revised position and directed that the details at issue should be withheld from release.

15.07.2010 Mr. H & The Medical Bureau of Road Safety (MBRS), Decision No. 090073

The Commissioner found that the claims for exemption made by the MBRS under section 23 of the FOI Act were not justified in this case having regard to section 34(12)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, she annulled the decision of the MBRS and directed the release of the records concerned.

25.06.2010 Ms. X & The Health Service Executive South (the HSE), Decision No. 090318

The Senior Investigator found that no basis for further amendment of the medical records had been demonstrated by the Applicant. She affirmed the decision of the HSE accordingly.

01.07.2010 Mr. X & Health Service Executive ("the HSE"), Decision No. 080270

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the HSE having found that: (a) the personal information at one location in the record is misleading and should be amended by alteration, and (b) the personal information at five locations in the record is incorrect and misleading and should be amended by deletion. She upheld the HSE's decision relation to the remaining parts of the request for amendment.

14.07.2010 Ms. ABC & The Rotunda Hospital, Dublin (the Hospital), Decision No. 100114

The Senior Investigator found that the Hospital is justified in its decision under section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act to refuse access to the additional records sought on the basis that the records do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.

16.07.2010 Mr X , on behalf of a Residents Association ("the applicant") and Shannon Development ("the public body")., Decision No. 080105

The Senior Investigator varied the public body's decision and decided that some further parts of the record should be released.

15.07.2010 Mr. W & The Medical Bureau of Road Safety (MBRS) , Decision No. 080260

The Commissioner varied the decision of the MBRS by affirming it in part and annulling it in part. She found that the source code of the Lion Intoxilyzer 6000 IRL is a trade secret and is exempt under section 27(1)(a) of the Act and that a duty of confidence is also owed to the manufacturer, Lion Laboratories Ltd under section 26(1)(b) in respect of the source code. Having regard to section 34(12)(b) of the FOI Act, she found that the claims for exemption made by the MBRS with respect to the remaining records at issue were not justified. She accepted that the Lion Laboratories Handbook is under copyright, but found no basis for refusing access by way of inspection under section 12(1)(d) of the FOI Act. She directed that access to the other relevant records be granted by providing the applicant with a copy of the records concerned.

12.07.2010 Mr X ("the Applicant") and Kerry County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 090267

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's decision and found that the relevant records should be released.

16.06.2010 Ms. X & Midland Regional Hospital, Tullamore, Co. Offaly ("the hospital"), Decision No. 090243

The Senior Investigator found that the hospital is justified in its refusal to release additional records on the basis that such records either do not exist or cannot be found and that section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies.

14.06.2010 Mr. X & Health Service Executive ("the HSE"), Decision No. 090232

The Commissioner found that the HSE is justified under section 47 of the FOI Act in charging a search and retrieval fee proportionate to those records to which access was granted by the one decision maker (out of a total of 7 decision makers involved) who levied the fee; she varied the decision and directed that the HSE refund to the Applicant the balance of the fee paid.

14.06.2010 Mr and Mrs H & The Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 100046

The Commissioner found that whilst the HSE had relied on other sections of the FOI Act in refusing the request, the records fell to be refused by reference to the mandatory exemption under section 22(1)(b) of the FOI Act on the basis that their content is such that disclosure would constitute contempt of court. She affirmed the decision to refuse the request but varied the basis for this from that set out in the HSE's decision.

31.05.2010 Ms. X & Beaumont Hospital ("the Hospital"), Decision No. 070322

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Hospital and directed that access be granted by way of inspection to certain records. The granting of access in the form of copies would involve an infringement of copyright and section 12 of the FOI Act provides for the granting of access in a form or manner other than that requested.

09.06.2010 Mr. X & National University Ireland, Maynooth (the University), Decision No. 090172

The Senior Investigator found that the University's revised statement of reasons satisfied the requirements of section 18 of the FOI Act and affirmed the decision of the University accordingly.

02.06.2010 Ms. X & St. James' Hospital (the Hospital), Decision No. 090257

The Senior Investigator found that the Hospital's decision to refuse access to the records sought is justified under section 28(1) of the FOI Act and affirmed the decision accordingly.

11.06.2010 Ms. X & Health Service Executive Dublin Mid-Leinster ("the HSE"), Decision No. 090314

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE. She found that, on balance, the public interest is better served by granting the requester access to the records.

17.05.2010 Mr X & University College Cork (UCC), Decision No. 090045

The Senior Investigator found that UCC's decision to refuse access to the records sought is justified under section 28(1) of the FOI Act and affirmed the decision accordingly.

17.05.2010 Sunday Times & Dublin City University (DCU), Decision No. 090150

The Information Commissioner found that the decision of DCU to refuse access to the records at issue is justified under section 2(5)(a) and/or under section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act and affirmed the decision accordingly.

20.05.2010 Mr X & Cork County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 090217

The Commissioner's authorised official affirmed the Council's position that sections 10(1)(a) and 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act were applicable in this case.

21.05.2010 Mr. X & Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism ("the Department"), Decision No. 090264

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision.

12.03.2010 The Sunday Times, Dublin & The Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 090191

The Information Commissioner found that the HSE had not justified its refusal of the request by reference to sections 20, 21, 26 and 27 of the FOI Act. She was critical of the HSE's handling of the request and of the review. She directed the release of the records.

22.01.2010 Mr. L c/o Solicitors M ('the Applicant") & Health and Safety Authority ("the HSA"), Decision No. 090285

Whether the HSA's decision to refuse access to records concerning a workplace accident is justified under section 46(1) of the FOI Act

20.10.2009 Helsinn Birex Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Irish Medicines Board, Decision No. Case No. 070304

Whether the decision of the IMB to grant a request to which section 29 of the FOI Act applies, involving Periodic Safety Update Reports on the drug nimesulide, is justified

22.04.2010 Ms X & Health Service Executive ("the HSE"), Decision No. 090259

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is not justified in its decision and directed that the personal information at issue be partly deleted and amended in the manner specified.

29.04.2010 Mr. A ("the Applicant") & Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ("the Department"), Decision No. 100002

The Senior Investigator found that the Department is justified in its refusal of the records sought on the basis that such records cannot be found and that section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies.

13.04.2010 Senator Marc MacSharry & HSE West (the HSE), Decision No. 090192

The Information Commissioner found that the claims for exemptions under sections 20 and 21 of the FOI Act made by the HSE and (HIQA) were not justified in this case having regard to section 34(12) of the Act. Accordingly, she annulled the decision of the HSE and directed the release of the interim report in full.

23.04.2010 Ms. X & Clare County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 090249

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's decision and found that the records should be released.

31.03.2010 An Blascaod Mór Teoranta (BMT) & Office of Public Works (OPW), Decision No. 090153

The Commissioner's authorised official annulled the decision of the OPW that the record at issue was exempt under section 27 of the FOI Act. He directed that it be released and stated that he would consider the public interest to warrant its release in any event. He also did not accept BMT's claim that the details at issue were subject to a duty of confidence (section 26), or that section 28 applied to them.

31.03.2010 Mr X & Dublin City Council , Decision No. 090250

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's decision and found that the records should be released.

26.02.2010 AB Solicitors (on behalf of the Administrator of the Estate of a deceased person) & Health & Safety Authority (the HSA) , Decision No. 090308

The Commissioner's authorised official affirmed the decision of the HSA that the records were outside the scope of the FOI Act by virtue of section 46(1)(dc) thereof (as inserted into the Act by section 74 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005).

15.03.2010 Mr. X & Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment ("the Department"), Decision No. 070116

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision and found that the names were exempt under section 27 of the FOI Act. He did not make a finding regarding sections 26 and 31.

16.03.2010 Ms. M (the Applicant) & The Health Service Executive (HSE) , Decision No. 090279

The Information Commissioner found that the HSE had not justified its refusal of the request by reference to sections 26 of the FOI Act. She directed the release of the records subject to redaction of one part of the records which identifies a third party and is exempt under section 28 of the FOI Act.

25.02.2010 Ms. X & the Health Service Executive South (the HSE), Decision No. 090154

The Commissioner found that the claims for exemptions made by the HSE and the relevant Hospital were unfounded in this case. She also found that the public interest favoured the release of the draft reports to the Applicant. Accordingly, she annulled the decision of the HSE and directed the release of the records concerned.

02.03.2010 Mr. H & the Health Service Executive (HSE) , Decision No. 080178

The Commissioner found that the HSE was not justified in its refusal of access to certain records (which records have since been released in the course of the review); she further found that the FOI Acts did not give her jurisdiction to direct the HSE to make additional copies of records available to the Applicant's sister in circumstances where copies of those records had been previously released to the Applicant's legal representative.

03.03.2010 Mr. X & the Department of Transport (the Department), Decision No. 090125

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision. Having regard to section 18(5) of the FOI Act, she found that the Applicant did not have a material interest in the acts for which he sought a statement of reasons, and was thus not entitled to such a statement under section 18(1) thereof.

26.02.2010 Mr. R & Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment (the Department), Decision No. 090001

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision and found that the records should be withheld in accordance with section 21(1)(c) of the FOI Act.

23.02.2010 Irish Examiner & Department of Finance , Decision No. 090282

The Senior Investigator found that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof under section 34(12)(b) to justify its exemption of the record. He annulled the Department's finding and directed it to release the record concerned.

25.02.2010 Mr. XYZ & the Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 090039

The Commissioner found that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the HSE is not justified in its decision to charge a fee to copy x-rays under section 47 of the FOI Act.

18.02.2010 Mr. X ("the Applicant") & Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 090061

Whether the Council is justified in its decision to refuse a request for certain records made under section 7 of the FOI Act on the basis that they are exempt from release under the provisions of the FOI Act

18.11.2009 Ms. L & A hospital, Decision No. 090053

Whether the Hospital's decision to refuse access to records comprising details of certain policies, practices and statistical information sought by the applicant was justified under Section 10 of the FOI Act.

09.02.2010 X Solicitors on behalf of Mr Y ("the Applicant") & The Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform ("the Department"), Decision No. 090161

Whether the Department is justified in its decision under section 18 of the FOI Act to refuse to provide reasons for its decision to refuse the Applicant's naturalisation application.

12.02.2010 Mr. X & Department of Transport ("the Department"), Decision No. 080082

Whether the Department is justified in its decision to withhold a certain record on the grounds of sections 20 and 26 of the FOI Act.

22.01.2010 The Sunday Times ("the Applicant") & Department of Finance ("the Department"), Decision No. 090028

Whether the Department is justified in its decision (in reliance variously on sections 19(1)(a), 19(1)(aa)(i), 19(1)(c), 20(1), 21(1)(c), 26(1)(a), 26(1)(b), 27(1)(b), 28(1), 31 and 32 of the FOI Act) to refuse access to records sought in a request under section 7 of the FOI Act

20.01.2010 Ms. X ("the Applicant") & The Health Service Executive ("the HSE") , Decision No. 090176

Whether the HSE is justified under section 47 of the FOI Act, in its decision to charge a fee of €92.00 in respect of the estimated cost of photocopying records relating to her personal information and that of her children.

13.01.2010 Mr. XYZ & The Health Service Executive (HSE) , Decision No. 090111

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is justified in its decision that (1) the withheld parts of the records are exempt from release in that section 28(1) of the FOI Act applies and the public interest in granting the request is not outweighed by the public interest that the right to privacy of individuals be upheld under section 28(5) of the FOI Act; and (2) audiology records are exempt from release under section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that such records do not exist or cannot be found after reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. She affirmed the HSE's decision.

23.12.2009 Y & Co. Solicitors on behalf of Ms X, Decision No. 080263

Request to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (the Department) for various documents relating to Ms Y - whether any relevant records that might be held by the Gardai are under the control of the Department - section 2(5)(a) - whether records would be exempt from production in proceedings in a court on the ground of legal professional privilege - section 22(1)(a) - whether records contain material the release of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair lawful methods, systems, plans or procedures for ensuring the safety of the public and the safety or security of persons and property - section 23(1)(a)(iii) - whether the conditions required to be met in order for the public interest to be considered in respect of the latter variety of records have been met - section 23(3) - whether records contain information obtained or prepared for the purpose of intelligence in respect of the security or defence of the State - section 24(2)(a)(i) - whether records outside the scope of the FOI Act by virtue of section 46(1)(b).

14.12.2009 AB & Co. Solicitors on behalf of Mr X, Decision No. 080216

Whether the Department is justified in its decision (in reliance on sections 22(1)(a) and 28(1) of the FOI Act) to refuse access to records sought in a request under section 7 of the FOI Act.

22.09.2009 Irish Independent ("the Applicant") & Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment ("the Department"), Decision No. 080099

Whether the Department's decision to refuse access to records under sectiuons 21, 23, 26, 27 and 28 of the FOI Act was justified.

22.12.2009 ARB & The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (the Department), Decision No. 070266

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He found that the Department was justified in its decision that additional records either do not exist or cannot be found and that section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies. He also found that section 46(1)(b) was applicable to the record created by the member of staff of the Attorney General's Office, and that section 22(1)(a) applies to the record concerning the seeking of legal advice.

18.12.2009 Company A and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Decision No. 070070

Whether the C&AG is justified in its decision to refuse a request for records made under section 7 of the FOI Act on the basis that they are exempt from release under the provisions of the FOI Act.

18.12.2009 Ms X & Department Y ("the Department"), Decision No. Case 090147

Whether the Department is justified in its decision under section 17 of the FOI Act to refuse to amend records in which personal information is held.

18.12.2009 Mr. DM (the applicant) & A third level college (the College), Decision No. 090066

The Commissioner varied the decision of the College and directed the release of certain records. She found that Section 23(1)(aa) of the FOI Act, which provides for refusal of access if such access could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or safety of any person applies only to parts of the records and that redacted versions of these records should be released.

18.12.2009 Ms X & The Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 090245

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is justified in its decision that the records are exempt from release in that section 28(1) of the FOI Act applies and the public interest in granting the request is not outweighed by the public interest that the right to privacy of individuals be upheld under section 28(5) of the FOI Act. She affirmed the HSE's decision.

16.12.2009 Ms C & A Hospital, Decision No. 090206

The Senior Investigator found that the hospital is justified in its decision under section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act to refuse access to the records sought on the basis the records do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.

30.11.2009 Mr Denis Calnan, Assistant General Secretary, IMPACT & Offaly County Council (the Council) , Decision No. Case 090202

The Senior Investigator found that the Council is not justified in its refusal of access to the record. He annulled the decision of the Council and directed it to release the record in question.

07.12.2009 Mr XY & Dublin City Council (the Council), Decision No. Case 090151

The Senior Investigator found that the Council is justified in its decision under section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act to refuse access to the records on the basis that such records do not exist or cannot be found.

30.11.2009 Mr. X & Fingal County Council (the Council), Decision No. 080258

The Senior Investigator found that the Applicant did not have a material interest in the matter, as that term is defined in section 18(5) of the FOI Act, and therefore that the Applicant was not entitled to a statement of reasons under section 18 of the FOI Act. She affirmed the decision of the Council accordingly

07.12.2009 Company AB ("the Applicant") & Limerick County Council ("the Council"), Decision No. 080240

Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the FOI Act, the Commissioner found that the Council is not justified in its refusal of access to the records at issue. She examined the provisions of section 21(1)(c), section 27(1)(c) and section 31(1) of the Act. She accepted that section 27(1)(c) could apply but found under section 27(3) that the public interest in granting the request outweighed the public interest in refusing it. She annulled the decision of the Council and directed it to grant access to the records

03.12.2009 Mr. X & Clare County Council (the Council), Decision No. 080156

07.12.2009 Ms. C & Health Service Executive (the HSE), Decision No. 090132

The Commissioner found that the Applicant did not have a material interest in the matter, as that term is defined in section 18(5) of the FOI Act, and therefore that the Applicant was not entitled to a statement of reasons under section 18 of the FOI Act. She affirmed the decision of the HSE accordingly.

07.12.2009 Ms. C & Department of Health and Children (the Department), Decision No. 090131

20.11.2009 Ms X & The Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. Case 090104

Whether the HSE is justified in its decision to refuse a request for access to a copy of videotapes of assessments of the applicant's children made under section 7 of the FOI Act on the basis that the records are exempt from release under section 28 of the FOI Act. The HSE also referred to section 12 (2)(b)(iv) of the Act in relation to its provision of the records for inspection as opposed to granting access in the form of copies as required.

19.11.2009 Ms X & The Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. Case 090088

Whether the HSE is justified in its decision to refuse a request for access to the medical records of the Applicant's late mother made under section 7 of the FOI Act on the basis that the records do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.

10.11.2009 X & Co. Solicitors on behalf of Mr Y ("the Applicant") & The Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform ("the Department"), Decision No. Case 060092

Appeal of the refusal of the Department to grant access to records it held in relation to the Dublin Monaghan Bombings under sections 19(1)(a), 23(1)(a)(iii), and 28(1) of the FOI Act.

12.08.2009 Ms X & The Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. Case 090130

Appeal by the person to whom the information relates against the decision of the HSE to grant a request for access to a record (report of an accident at the Applicant's premises) on the basis that, while the record qualifies for the exemption at section 27(1) (b) of the FOI Act, the public interest would, on balance, be better served by the granting of the request . The HSE decision was taken in accordance with section 27(3) of the FOI Act. This was a request to which section 29 of the FOI Act applies.

05.11.2009 Mr X & The Medical Council (the Council), Decision No. 090042

Whether the Council's decision to refuse access to any further records relating his complaint against a medical consultant is justified under section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act

09.11.2009 Mr & Mrs A, Mr B c/o X Solicitors & The Health Service Executive, Dublin Mid-Leinster (HSE), Decision No. Case 090199

Whether the HSE is justified in its decision to refuse a request, made under section 7 of the FOI Act, for access to records held by the HSE on the basis that the records are exempt from release under various provisions of the FOI Act.

23.10.2009 X & Y ("the Department")., Decision No. 080074, 080091

Whether the Department has carried out its responsibilities under section 17 of the FOI Act in relation to certain records identified by the applicant and also whether its statement of reasons for particular actions is adequate for the purposes of section 18 of the Act

28.05.2009 Case 080208 - Mr John Burns, The Sunday Times and Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Decision No. 080208

Whether the decision of TCD to refuse access to records concerning the Office of the Director of Buildings (including the Buildings Office and agents of the College) is justified under the FOI Act

16.10.2009 Mr X and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (the Department)., Decision No. 080027

Whether the Department is justified in its decision to refuse to release details of the total amounts paid to the experts involved in compiling the published report on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (the report).

06.10.2009 Mr ACB c/o Solicitors and a Service Provider , Decision No. 080025

Whether the Service Provider is justified in its decision to refuse a request, made under section 7 of the FOI Act, for access to records relating to complaints of sexual assault on the basis that certain records are exempt from release under various provisions of the FOI Act, including sections 21, 22 and 28.

20.08.2009 The Medical Missionaries of Mary & The Health Service Executive , Decision No. 070350

Whether the HSE is justified in its refusal of access to records relating to the purchase of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth (the Hospital) in 1997 by reference to various sections of the FOI Act, including sections 6(4), 6(5)(a), 10(1)(a), 22(1)(a), 27(1)(b) and (c) and 46.

28.05.2009 Mr ABC & The Health Service Executive (HSE) South, Decision No. 080279

Whether the HSE is justified under the provisions of section 26 of the FOI Act in its decision to grant access to social work records concerning (the school). The application arises from a decision to which, in the opinion of the HSE, the provisions of section 29 of the FOI Act apply.

07.05.2009 Mr XYZ & The Health Service Executive , Decision No. 080129

Whether the HSE is justified in its decision to refuse a request for records concerning the applicant's premises made under section 7 of the FOI Act on the basis that some records and parts of records are exempt from release under various provisions of the FOI Act.

07.07.2009 Mr. Q & The Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 080292

Whether the HSE's decision to refuse access to records of a psychiatric nature relating to the applicant was justified under Sections 21, 23 and 28 of the FOI Act.

17.08.2009 Mr W and The Health Service Executive, Decision No. 090102

Whether the HSE is justified in its decision (in reliance on section 28 of the FOI Act) to refuse access to records concerning the applicant's son which were sought in a request under section 7 of the FOI Act

23.06.2009 Mr C and University of Limerick, Decision No. 080002 and 080003

Whether amendment of the marks awarded to the applicant in relation to his Revenue Law examination script is required under section 17 of the FOI Act; whether the University has provided an adequate of reasons under section 18 of the FOI Act for the decision not to award the applicant the full amount of marks allocated to questions 1 and 5 of the Revenue Law examination script.

10.06.2009 Cara Technologies and the Environmental Protection Agency , Decision No. 040312

Request for access to records concerning an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - whether records held by the EPA that are copies of records held by the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) are outside the scope of the FOI Act - section 46(1)(b) - whether the records are subject to legal professional privilege - section 22(1)(a) - whether their disclosure would be in contempt of court - section 22(1)(b) - whether their disclosure could prejudice the fairness of pending court proceedings - section 23(1)(a)(iv) - whether their disclosure could prejudice or impair the investigation of offences, the prosecution of offenders or the effectiveness of lawful methods employed for such purposes - section 23(1)(a)(i) - whether their disclosure could prejudice or impair the enforcement of, compliance with or administration of any law - section 23(1)(a)(ii ) - whether the records contain commercially sensitive information - section 27 - whether public interest warrants their release - section 27(3).

15.06.2009 Mr Colin Coyle, Sunday Times and Dublin City Council, Decision No. 080232

Whether the Council is justified in its decision under section 27 of the FOI Act to refuse access to records sought under section 7 of the Act. The withheld records comprise a "concession contract" and related records concerning the provision of outdoor advertising and public amenity services in Dublin by JCDecaux.

21.05.2009 Irish Medical News & the HSE, Decision No. 090023

Whether the HSE is justified in its decision to refuse access to a record comprising a review of acute services in HSE South on the basis that the record is exempt from release under the provisions of section 20(1) of the FOI Act. The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is not justified in its refusal of access to the record. She annulled the decision of the HSE and directed it to release the record in question.

07.10.2008 Mr Eamonn Murphy & the Industrial Development Agency (IDA), Decision No. 070332

The Commissioner found that the IDA had not properly applied the provisions of the FOI Act in exempting excerpts of the report. Accordingly, the IDA's decision was annulled and a new decision was made that the report be released in full to the applicant. This decision was made and issued on 7 October, 2008. Note: When decisions of the Information Commissioner are published, the normal practice is to anonymise the party/parties concerned, however, in this case, the Applicant has requested that his name be published.

27.11.2008 Mr. X and Galway County Council, Decision No. 070290

The Commissioner's decision on the request for access to the records of Galway County Council dealing with the seizure, in March 1999, under the Control of Horses Act 1996, of three horses and their subsequent destruction, upheld Galway County Council's refusal of access to all but one such record on the basis that records did not exist. One record was found and released to the requester during the course of the review.

25.11.2008 Mr. X and a County Council, Decision No. 060130

Access to an Investigation Report under the Council's Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures requested by the person who had been the subject of the investigation. WIth the exception of the personal information of individuals which was found to be exempt under section 28(1) of the FOI Act, the Office directed that the requested access be granted.

21.10.2008 Mr. Y and the Health Service Executive (the HSE). , Decision No. Case 080144

The Senior Investigator found that the HSE is not justified in its refusal of access to the record. She annulled the decision of the HSE and directed it to release the record in question.

19.08.2008 Philip Boucher-Hayes, RTÉ and County Council X , Decision No. 080050

The Commissioner found that the Council was justified in its decision to refuse the request and justified in its decision not to disclose whether or not the records sought by the Applicant actually exist.

07.01.2008 Mr. AA and the Health Service Executive, Decision No. 060320

Access to a report of an enquiry team arising from a complaint concerning prescribing and dispensing practices - whether the record relates to deliberative process - section 20(1) - whether access to the record could prejudice investigations or have an adverse effect on performance of public body's functions - section 21(1)(a) and (b) - whether the record contains commercially sensitive information - section 27(1)(b) - public interest test - section 27(3).

25.08.1998 Mr. AAG and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, Decision No. 98022

Access to pre-commencement records - application of section 6(5)(b) - whether information about a company is personal information about its shareholder/managing director - definition of personal information - section 2.

27.11.2001 Mr. & Mrs. ACG, Mr. ACH, Mr. ACI, Mr. ACJ, and Messrs. ACK and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural, Decision No. 99591, 99594, 99596, 99598, and 99606

Names of recipients and amounts of top 10 payments under the Arable Area Aid (AAA) Scheme and the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme - whether release would result in disclosure of personal information relating to recipients - section 28(1) - consideration of the public interest - section 28(5)(a)

31.10.2007 Ms Y and the Health Service Executive (HSE), Decision No. 060030

Access to records relating to a reference supplied to the HSE by a former employer of Ms. Y - whether disclosure of the information concerned would constitute a breach of an equitable duty of confidence - whether public interest considerations relevant in deciding whether disclosure would breach equitable duty of confidence - fair procedure and the public interest - fair procedure and equity - whether disclosure is "unauthorised" - section 26(1)(b).

29.05.2006 NMCK and the HSE, Decision No. 99491, 020593, 030587

Request by a parent for access to records of his family - personal information - section 28 (1) - access by parent to medical records of a minor - primary position that presumption exists that parent is entitled to access to records of a minor child - whether circumstances exist to rebut the presumption that release of records would best serve the minor's interests - section 28(6) - whether the public interest that the request be granted outweighs the public interest that the right to privacy of the individual be upheld - section 28(5)(a).

27.04.2006 N.McK and a Dublin Hospital, Decision No. 000128A

19.05.2006 N. McK and a Dublin Hospital, Decision No. 000137

Request by a parent for access to medical records of a minor - primary position that presumption exists that the parent is entitled to access to the records - whether circumstances exist to rebut the presumption that release of information would best serve the minor's interests - section 28(6) - whether the public interest that the request be granted outweighs the public interest that the right of privacy of the individual be upheld - section 28(5)(a) - whether legal professional privilege applies where the client is deceased - section 22(1)(a) - whether disclosure of records would constitute contempt of court - whether breach of in camera rule would occur -section 22(1)(b)

17.12.1999 Mr ABM, Mr ABN, Mr ABO, ABP Ltd, ABQ Company Ltd, Mr ABR, Mr ABS and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Decision No. 99017, 99018, 99019, 99020, 99038, 99039 and 99040

Records relating to the requesters' tax affairs and section 811 of the Taxes Consolidation Act (TCA) 1997 - whether access to pre-commencement records is necessary or expedient to understand post-commencement records - section 6 - whether records relate to personal information - section 2 - legal professional privilege - section 22(1)(a) - whether access could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair the fairness of civil proceedings in a court - section 23(1)(a)(iv).

02.07.2001 Mrs. ACE and the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Decision No. 99097

Letters containing allegations - whether information given in confidence - section 26(1)(a) - whether the public interest would be better served by granting rather than refusing access - section 26(3)

21.12.1999 Ms ABT, Mr ABU and the North Eastern Health Board, Decision No. 99347 and 99357

Records relating to Mr ABU's late brother (Mr ABV) and the private nursing home in which he died - whether access was necessary or expedient to understand post-commencement records - section 6 - whether records contained commercially sensitive information - section 27 - the public interest

25.11.2001 Mr. Mark Henry and the Office of Public Works, Decision No. 98188

Tender-related records - records at issue including successful and unsuccessful tender documents - commercially sensitive information - sections 27(1)(b) and (c) - whether information given in confidence - section 26(1)(a) - whether disclosure would constitute a breach of an equitable duty of confidence - section 26(1)(b) - consideration of the public interest.

16.06.2000 Mr Phelim McAleer of the Sunday Times and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Decision No. 98058

Records relating to the drafting of the Solicitors Amendment Bill, 1998 - whether information given in confidence - section 26(1)(a) - whether disclosure would constitute a breach of a duty of confidence - section 26(1)(b) - whether legal professional privilege applies to legal advice and other records submitted to the Department in confidence by a third party - section 22(1)(a) - records created by the Office of the Attorney General - section 46(1)(b) - records submitted to the Government - section 19(1)(a) - records of the Government - section 19(1)(b) - whether granting access to a record relating to the deliberative process would be contrary to the public interest - section 20(1)(a) - whether access to copies of published articles may be refused under section 46(2) - whether access to a pre-commencement record necessary or expedient to understand other records - section 6(5)(a)

22.06.2000 Mr Phelim McAleer of the Sunday Times newspaper and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Decision No. 98060

Records relating to the signature of the Brussels II convention on the recognition of matrimonial proceedings in EU states - records received from the Council of the European Union - whether access to such records could reasonably be expected to affect adversely the international relations of the State - section 24(1)(c) - whether Department entitled to refuse access to a memorandum to the Government - section 19(1)(a) - whether Department entitled to refuse access to memos relating to the circulation of the memorandum - section 19 - records of the Government - section 19(1)(b) - records containing factual information relating to a decision of the Government that has been published to the general public - section 19(3)

25.09.1998 Lt. Col. (Retd.) AAD and the Defence Forces, Decision No. 98021

Pre-commencement records on personnel file - retired army officer - definition of personal information - access to performance appraisal reports given in confidence - consideration of sections 6(5)(b) and 6(6)(b).

25.09.1998 Mr. AAE and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Decision No. 98026

Access to personnel records - whether the interests of the requester adversely affected - application of section 6(6)(c).

09.11.1998 Mr. AAK and the Department of Agriculture and Food, Decision No. 98032

Records containing allegations about requester - legal professional privilege - section 22(1)(a) - information given in confidence - section 26(1)(a) - whether public interest better served by release - section 26(3) - disclosure of identity of sources - section 46(1)(f) - application of section 13.

31.03.1999 Mr. Martin Wall, The Sunday Tribune newspaper and the Department of Health and Children, Decision No. 98078

Records relating to the expenditure of health boards and voluntary hospitals - whether related to deliberative process - section 20(1) - whether significant adverse effect on functions relating to management - section 21(1)(b) - whether disclosure of positions to be taken in negotiations - section 21(1)(c) - whether prejudice to administration of any law - section 23(1)(a)(ii) - whether information given in confidence - section 26 - whether information commercially sensitive - section 27(1) - personal information - section 28 - whether financial interests of the State affected - section 31 - the public interest.

16.10.2001 Ms ACH and Others and the Department of Education and Science, Decision No. 000365

Letter of complaint to Minister for Education and Science regarding poor working atmosphere in school - whether release of letter could reveal the identities of suppliers of information given in confidence relating to the administration of the civil law - section 23(1)(b) - whether its contents amounted to personal information relating to the signatories - whether its contents amount to personal information relating to requesters - section 28(1) - whether letter given in confidence - section 26(1)(a) - public interest.

29.04.1999 Mr. ABI and the Department of Agriculture and Food, Decision No. 98109

Note : This decision was appealed to the High Court on a point of law. On 17 December 1999, the High Court varied the Commissioner's decision and granted Mr ABI access to all records on his personnel file and awarded costs against the Department.

20.01.1999 Mr. AAW and the Department of Agriculture and Food, Decision No. 98092

Names and addresses of signatories to letter of objection - whether information given in confidence -section 26 - whether personal information - whether section 28 applied.

09.04.2001 Mr. Daniel Reed and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Decision No. 000041

Contents of letters of objection relating to a work permit application - whether information given in confidence - section 26(1)(a) - whether the public interest would be better served by granting rather than refusing access - section 26(3) - whether disclosure would constitute a breach of an equitable duty of confidence - section 26(1)(b)

13.08.1998 Mr. Michael Grange and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Decision No. 98015

Access to records - correction of misleading record - whether a binding ruling required.

25.09.1998 Mr. AAC and the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, Decision No. 98017

Pre-commencement records on personnel file - consideration of section 6(6)(c) - whether the granting of access in one case would impose an excessive administrative burden having regard to other similar cases - section 10(1)(c).

05.05.1999 Ms. Fiona McHugh, The Sunday Times newspaper and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Decision No. 98100

Commercially sensitive information - section 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(c) - information received from third parties - whether information received in confidence - section 26(1)(a) - the public interest.

23.10.1998 Mr. AAI and the Department of Health and Children, Decision No. 98011

Legal professional privilege - section 22(1)(a) - sufficiency of search for records - section 10(1)(a) - whether records contained personal information about the requester - whether access necessary or expedient to understand records created after commencement - section 6(5)(a).

07.10.1999 The Sunday Times, The Sunday Tribune and the Kerryman newspapers and the Department of Education and Science, Decision No. 98104, 98130, 99024

NB - The Information Commissioner's decision in this case was appealed to the High Court by the Minister for Education and Science on a point of law. The judgement of the High Court was given on 31 July 2001. Mr. Justice O Caoimh concluded "that the Information Commissioner erred in law in his construction and/or application of Section 53 of the Education Act, 1998." An order was made to discharge the Information Commissioner's decision of 7 October 1999, along with an order consisting of a declaration that the Sunday Times, the Sunday Tribune and the Kerryman newspapers were not entitled to access to the records in question. The text of the High Court judgement is available by following this link [2316_492.htm]

13.09.2000 Mr ACD and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform., Decision No. 99003

Note : This decision was appealed to the High Court by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and by the Courts Service. The Court granted leave to the Director of Public Prosecutions to be joined in the proceedings. Judgement was delivered by Mr. Justice Finnegan on 14 March 2001. The High Court varied the Commissioner's decision and found that Mr. ACD was not entitled to access to the transcript as its disclosure to the general public is prohibited by the Court. The judgement is described briefly below. The full text of the High Court decision can be viewed by following this link.

28.09.1999 Mr ABK and the Eastern Health Board, Decision No. 99011

Note : This decision was appealed to the High Court on a point of law. On 4 April 2001, the High Court upheld the Commissioner's decision with regard to records refused under section 22(1)(b) of the Act. The Court made no ruling in relation to the refusal of records under section 6(4) and 6(5) of the Act, pending inspection of these records by the Court. The full text of the judgement of 4 April 2001 can be viewed by following this linkOn 21 December 2001, the High Court gave its judgement in respect of the remaining records, the full text of which can be viewed by following this link

03.12.1999 Mr ABL and the North Western Health Board, Decision No. 99273

Report of investigator - whether information given in confidence - whether release would prejudice effectiveness of future investigations - section 21(1)(a) - whether disclosure could have significant adverse effect on functions relating to management - section 21(1)(b) - whether record was prepared by a person providing a service to the Health Board under a contract for services - section 26(2) - the public interest.

12.11.2001 Mrs ACL and the Mid-Western Health Board, Decision No. 99227

Information relating to the identity of persons who made allegations against the requester - whether the information was given in confidence in relation to the enforcement or administration of the civil law - section 23(1)(b)

02.02.2000 Mr ABW and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Decision No. 99151

Fee and deposit - whether information already provided to another requester free of charge - whether fee represented unfair discriminatory charging - whether fee amount appropriate - consideration of section 47(1) - consideration of fee estimate - section 47(2) - consideration of fee quantum - section 47(3) - frivolous or vexatious - consideration of section 10(1)(e).

27.07.1999 Mr Richard Oakley, The Sunday Tribune newspaper and the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, Decision No. 99168

Details of expenses paid to members of the Houses of the Oireachtas - whether personal information about the members - application of section 28 - consideration of the public interest - section 28(5) - whether records of expense payments are official records of the Houses of the Oireachtas or private papers of the members.

19.12.2001 Ms ACM and the Midland Health Board, Decision No. 99175

04.07.2001 Ms ACF and the North Eastern Health Board, Decision No. 99001

Personal information - the public interest - section 28 - consideration of section 28(2)(e) - information obtained in confidence - section 26 - contempt of court - section 22(1)(b) - the fairness of criminal or civil proceedings - section 23(1)(a)(iv).

04.07.2000 Mr ABX and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Decision No. 99046

Records relating to disability benefit claim - whether records did not exist or could not be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts had been taken - section 10(1)(a).

22.10.1998 Mr. AAR and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Decision No. 98019

Pre-commencement record - whether containing personal information about the requester - application of section 6 - record held by the courts - application of section 46.

12.10.1998 Mr. AAF and the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissioners, Decision No. 98020

Access sought to notes of an interview board - whether release would have significant adverse effect on recruitment function - application of section 21(1)(b) - whether public interest better served by release - application of section 21(2).

02.11.1998 Mr. AAJ and the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners, Decision No. 98023

Shortlisting board notes - whether release could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of the test - application of section 21(1)(a).

21.10.1998 Mr. AAH and the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissioners, Decision No. 98030

Access to test booklets and answer sheets used in a competition for promotion - prejudice to the effectiveness of test - application of sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) - whether booklets subject to copyright - whether public interest better served by release - section 21(2).

18.11.1998 Mr. AAM and the Department of Defence, Decision No. 98036

Intelligence reports - whether release might adversely affect the security or defence of the State - section 24(1) - legal professional privilege - section 22(1)(a).

20.11.1998 Moville Radiation Protection Group and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Decision No. 98038

Pre-commencement record - section 6 - whether right of access arises.

13.11.1998 Mr. Mark Henry and the Department of the Taoiseach, Decision No. 98040

Record of government - section 19(1) - deliberations of public body - section 20(1) - opinions or advice considered by a committee of a House of the Oireachtas - section 22(1)(c)(ii)(I) - international relations of the State - section 24(1)(c).

20.11.1998 Mr. Mark Henry and the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Decision No. 98041

Independent body established by order - staff of public body providing secretariat to the independent body - whether records created by secretariat are under control of public body - consideration of section 23(1)(a)(ii).

08.07.1999 Mr John Burns, The Sunday Times newspaper and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Decision No. 98042

Names of bodies treated as charities for tax purposes - whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair the enforcement of or compliance with tax law - section 23(1)(a)(ii) - information supplied in confidence - section 26(1)(a) - whether breach of equitable duty of confidence - section 26(1)(b) - whether disclosure would result in material financial loss - section 27(1)(b) - whether disclosure would prejudice contractual or other negotiations - section 27(1)(c) - consideration of public interest - personal information - application of section 28(1).

18.11.1998 Mr. AAN and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Decision No. 98043

Garda report sent to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform - whether information was given in confidence and on the understanding that it would be treated as confidential - whether release would prejudice the giving of similar information in future - whether it was important to the Department to receive similar information in the future - application of section 26(1)(a).

31.03.1999 Henry Ford & Sons Ltd, Nissan Ireland and Motor Distributors Ltd and The Office of Public Works, Decision No. 98049, 98056, 98057

Note : The decision in this case was initially appealed to the High Court on a point of law under section 42(1) of the Act by Motor Distributors Ltd. That appeal was subsequently withdrawn and the Commissioner's decision is now final and binding on all parties.

18.11.1998 Mr. Michael Grange and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Decision No. 98050

Pre-commencement records - whether access necessary or expedient to understand post-commencement records - application of section 6(5).

01.02.1999 Mr. AAZ and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Decision No. 98073

Pre-commencement records - records relating to business dealings with the Department - whether records contained personal information about the requester - application of section 6(5).

13.10.1998 Comdt. AAG and the Defence Forces, Decision No. 98075

Pre-commencement records on personnel file - definition of personal information - access to performance appraisal reports given in confidence - consideration of sections 6(5)(b), 6(6)(b) and 6(6)(c).

23.12.1998 Mr. AAT and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Decision No. 98077

Whether public interest in releasing personal information about third party - application of section 28(5) - existence of records disputed - application of section 10 - obligation to provide requester with assistance - application of section 6(2) - whether allegation made against requester by third party given in confidence - application of section 26(1)(a).

18.03.1999 Mr. ABF and the Department of Agriculture and Food, Decision No. 98079 and 98080

Access to pre - 21 April 1995 personnel records - application of section 6(6)(c) - whether personnel records were passed to interview board - section 10(1)(a) - whether information given in confidence - section 26 - legal professional privilege - section 22(1)(a) - refusal of third party consent to release personal information - section 28(2)(b) - record of Attorney General - section 46(1)(b).

11.02.1999 Mr. ABD and the Office of the Local Appointments Commissioners, Decision No. 98082

Shortlisting board notes - whether release could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the performance of functions in relation to recruitment - application of section 21(1)(b)

18.12.1998 Mrs. AAQ and the Pensions Board, Decision No. 98084

Pre-commencement records - personal information about other individuals - whether information received in confidence - application of section 26(1)(a) - legal professional privilege - application of section 22(1)(a) - whether release would prejudice or impair the investigation of offences - application of section 23(1)(a).

14.01.1999 Messrs. AAU and the Department of Agriculture and Food, Decision No. 98086

Investigation in progress, prosecution contemplated but not commenced - whether release would prejudice or impair the investigation or a prosecution - application of sections 21(1)(a) and 23(1)(a) - whether public interest better served by release.

15.01.1999 Mr. AAV and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Decision No. 98095

Assessment form - reasons sought for individual scores awarded to the requester - pre-commencement record - whether section 18 applied.

27.01.1999 Mr. Mark Henry and the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Decision No. 98098

Records held by official of Department as a member of an independent board - whether records held by the Department - whether records under the control of the Department - section 2(5)(a) - whether a contract for services existed - section 6(9).

13.09.2000 Mr. John Burns and the Department of Education and Science, Decision No. 98099

Records relating to Whole School Evaluation (WSE) reports created during a pilot project- whether the Department was entitled to refuse access under section 20(1) - deliberations of public bodies - whether reports prepared by scientific or technical experts - whether release would have a significant adverse effect on the performance of functions relating to management - section 21(1)(b) - the public interest.

01.02.1999 Ms. ABC and the Office of the Local Appointments Commissioners, Decision No. 98101

Candidate for Local Appointments Commission competition - reasons for decisions - whether "material interest" in a matter - application of section 18 - fresh questions asked after initial request.

23.09.1999 Mr.and Mrs. ABJ and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Decision No. 98102

Records relating to the requesters' tax affairs - whether access could lead to the revelation of the identity of a person who has given information in confidence - section 23(1)(b) - whether access could lead to the revelation of the identity of a person who has provided information in confidence in relation to criminal law - section 46(1)(f) - legal professional privilege - section 22(1)(a) - whether access could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair the enforcement of, compliance with or administration of any law - section 23(1)(a)(ii) - whether access could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair the fairness of civil proceedings in a court - section 23(1)(a)(iv) - whether access could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of Revenue audits - section 21(1)(a) - whether personal information about third parties would be disclosed - section 28 - records created by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions - section 46(1)(b)

28.01.1999 Mr. AAY and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Decision No. 98103

Information from anonymous informant - whether information given in confidence - sections 23(1)(b) and 26(1)(a) - whether public interest better served by release.

13.01.2000 Eircom Plc and the Department of Agriculture and Food; Mr Mark Henry and the Department of Agriculture and Food; Eircom Plc and the Department of Finance and Eircom Plc and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners., Decision No. 98114, 98132, 98164 and 98183

Disclosure of invoices paid to telecommunications companies - section 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(c) - whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in a material financial loss or could prejudice competitive position - whether disclosure could prejudice the conduct or outcome of negotiations - consideration of the public interest.

18.02.1999 Mr. ABE and the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Decision No. 98117

Access to pre-commencement record - whether necessary or expedient to understand a post-commencement record - section 6(5)(a).

22.03.1999 The Sunday Times newspaper and the Department of the Taoiseach and Mr. Phil Hogan T.D. and the Department of the Taoiseach., Decision No. 98125 and 99056

Records of a party political nature - section 2 - whether section 13 could apply

30.04.1999 Ms. Eithne Fitzgerald and The Department of the Taoiseach, Decision No. 98127

Policy papers - whether records submitted to Government are exempt - section 19 - whether records for use solely at Government meeting are exempt - section 19 - whether records were part of the deliberative process and release contrary to the public interest -section 20 - factual elements of records not exempt - whether records reveal strategy - whether access should be granted to pre-commencement records amended after commencement.

03.08.2000 MRS. ABZ and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Decision No. 98158

Records relating to the requester's tax affairs- whether the requester has a right of amendment - consequences of amendment - whether the right of amendment applies to pre-commencement records - onus of proof and standard of proof - meaning of the words "incomplete, incorrect or misleading" - section 17

06.07.2000 Ms ABY and the Department of Education and Science, Decision No. 98169

Records given by board of management of a school to Department - whether access to pre-commencement record is necessary or expedient - consideration of section 6(5)(a) - whether access should be granted so as to enable the right to amend personal information to be exercised - section 17 - whether release could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of procedures or methods employed for the conduct of investigations - consideration of section 21(1)(a) - whether release would have a significant, adverse effect on functions relating to management - consideration of section 21(1)(b) - whether information provided to Department in confidence - consideration of section 26(1)(a) - whether disclosure would constitute breach of an equitable duty of confidence - consideration of section 26(1)(b) - personal information - section 28 - consideration of the public interest.

30.04.1999 Mr. Michael Grange and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Decision No. 98179

Record held by Department - acquired by official as member of a board of another body - whether information given in confidence - section 26(1)(a).

30.03.1999 Ms. ABH and the Office of the Local Appointments Commissioners, Decision No. 98187

Records of an interview board - details of candidate's performance sought by third party - application of section 28 - consideration of the public interest test in section 28(5) - reasons for the decision under section 18.