H. (E.) v. Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 58; [2001] 2 IR 463 (4th April, 2001)

H. (E.) v. Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 58; [2001] 2 IR 463 (4th April, 2001)

Where a head of a public body or the Information Commissioner is aware of an undertaking to a court (express or implied) regarding discovered documents, disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 must be refused under s.22(1)(b) as such disclosure would constitute contempt of court. The Act cannot be used to circumvent court orders or undertakings. Refusal of access to pre-commencement or non-personal records is a factual matter for the Commissioner, reviewable only for legal error or irrationality.

Citation
[2001] IEHC 58
Parties
Appellant: Appellant (unnamed); Respondent: Information Commissioner; Notice Party: Minister for Health and Children; Notice Party: Eastern Health Board; Notice Party: Appellant’s daughter and former partner
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal (freedom of Information Act 1997, S.42(1)) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Information Commissioner
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Commissioner's decision upheld.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Discovery and Confidentiality, Contempt of Court, Legal Professional Privilege, In Camera Rule
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Information Law Freedom of Information Discovery and Confidentiality Contempt of Court Legal Professional Privilege In Camera Rule

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (unnamed)

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Minister for Health and Children

Notice Party

Eastern Health Board

Notice Party

Appellant’s daughter and former partner

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal (freedom of Information Act 1997, S.42(1)) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Information Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of documents obtained on discovery, subject to express or implied undertakings, can be compelled under the Freedom of Information Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether such disclosure would constitute a contempt of court under s.22(1)(b) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether refusal of access to pre-commencement records or records not relating to personal information was lawful under ss.6(4) and 6(5) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Where a head of a public body or the Information Commissioner is aware of an undertaking to a court (express or implied) regarding discovered documents, disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 must be refused under s.22(1)(b) as such disclosure would constitute contempt of court. The Act cannot be used to circumvent court orders or undertakings. Refusal of access to pre-commencement or non-personal records is a factual matter for the Commissioner, reviewable only for legal error or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Commissioner's decision upheld.

Orders

  • Disclosure of documents in Category A (both Board and Minister) refused under s.22(1)(b) due to undertakings and contempt of court.
  • Refusal of access to pre-commencement or non-personal records upheld, subject to possible court inspection if legal error alleged.