University College Cork v The Information Commissioner & ors (Unapproved) [2020] IESC 58 (25 September 2020)

University College Cork v The Information Commissioner & ors (Unapproved) [2020] IESC 58 (25 September 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the statutory presumption in s. 22(12)(b) and in permitting UCC to raise new arguments regarding redacted records on appeal. The correct test for commercial sensitivity under s. 36(1)(b) requires both identification of the information and a reasonable basis for asserting harm; bare assertions are insufficient. The Commissioner must consider all relevant material, including proposed redactions, but cannot be required to reconstruct records. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.

Citation
[2020] IESC 58
Parties
Appellant/respondent: University College Cork; Respondent/appellant: The Information Commissioner; Notice Party: Raidió Teilifís Éireann
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Commissioner for further decision.
Legal Topics
Commercial Sensitivity Exemption, Public Interest Override, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof in FOI Appeals
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Commercial Sensitivity Exemption Public Interest Override Statutory Interpretation Burden of Proof in FOI Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University College Cork

Appellant/respondent

The Information Commissioner

Respondent/appellant

Raidió Teilifís Éireann

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Correct interpretation and application of s. 36(1)(b) Freedom of Information Act 2014 (commercial sensitivity exemption)
  2. 2 Application of the statutory presumption in s. 22(12)(b)
  3. 3 Scope of the public interest override in s. 36(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the statutory presumption in s. 22(12)(b) and in permitting UCC to raise new arguments regarding redacted records on appeal. The correct test for commercial sensitivity under s. 36(1)(b) requires both identification of the information and a reasonable basis for asserting harm; bare assertions are insufficient. The Commissioner must consider all relevant material, including proposed redactions, but cannot be required to reconstruct records. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Commissioner for further decision.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal.
  • Remit the matter to the Information Commissioner for further decision in light of this judgment.