X and Cork County Council (FOI Act 2014) [2016] IEIC 150198 (5 February 2016)

X and Cork County Council (FOI Act 2014) [2016] IEIC 150198 (5 February 2016)

The reports did not contain trade secrets under section 36(1)(a). Certain information (client names, reference numbers, pricing) was commercially sensitive under section 36(1)(b), but the public interest did not require its release. Names of employees, insurance company employees, and loss adjustors were personal information under section 37(1), and the public interest did not outweigh the right to privacy. The remainder of the reports should be released with the specified redactions.

Citation
[2016] IEIC 150198
Parties
Requester: X; Respondent: Cork County Council; Third Party: Third Party (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner Under Section 22(2) of the FOI Act 2014
Outcome
Council's decision varied: affirmed in part, annulled in part.
Legal Topics
FOI Exemptions, Commercial Sensitivity, Personal Information, Public Interest Override
Administrative Law Freedom of Information FOI Exemptions Commercial Sensitivity Personal Information Public Interest Override

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Requester

Cork County Council

Respondent

Third Party (unnamed)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner Under Section 22(2) of the FOI Act 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's decision to release parts of three contamination assessment reports with redactions under sections 36(1) and 37(1) of the FOI Act was justified
  2. 2 Whether the information constituted trade secrets or commercially sensitive information under section 36(1)
  3. 3 Whether the information constituted personal information under section 37(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The reports did not contain trade secrets under section 36(1)(a). Certain information (client names, reference numbers, pricing) was commercially sensitive under section 36(1)(b), but the public interest did not require its release. Names of employees, insurance company employees, and loss adjustors were personal information under section 37(1), and the public interest did not outweigh the right to privacy. The remainder of the reports should be released with the specified redactions.

Court Disposition

Council's decision varied: affirmed in part, annulled in part.

Orders

  • Affirmed refusal of access under section 36(1)(b) to pricing information, job reference numbers, laboratory reference numbers.
  • Affirmed refusal of access to names and addresses of third party's clients, maps of site locations, and identifying landmarks.