Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Investigator affirmed the Council's decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the SFPA.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HPRA. He found that sections 35 and 36(1) did not apply to certain of the information at issue. He found that while sections 36(1)(b) and 36 (1)(c) applied to some of the information, the public interest would, on balance, be better served by granting access to that information.

The Investigator annulled the decision of the Council and directed it to consider the request afresh.

The Senior Investigator found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the record concerned in part, on the basis of section 37(1) of the FOI Act. She found that the public interest, on balance, did not favour its release. She also found that the Department was justified in refusing to release additional records on the basis that they did not exist or could not be located once all reasonable steps had been taken to ascertain their whereabouts under section 15(1)(a).

The Investigator annulled the Council's decision and directed the release of the record.

The Investigator affirmed the Department's refusal of the request.

The Investigator annulled Tusla's decisions and directed it to consider the applicant's requests afresh.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the HSE. He found that the HSE was not justified in refusing access to the records at issue under sections 35(1)(b) and 41(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He found that section 37(1) of the FOI Act applied to a small amount of information in the records. He directed the release of the records subject to the redaction of that information.

The Investigator varied the University's decision.