H. (E.) v. Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 182 (21st December, 2001)

H. (E.) v. Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 182 (21st December, 2001)

The test for whether a record 'relates to personal information' is whether there is a sufficiently substantial link between the requester's personal information and the record. The Commissioner erred in law by refusing disclosure of the affidavit of M W and documents numbered 3, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19, as these documents, while not containing personal information, made express reference to the appellant and thus fell within the statutory test. The refusal to disclose files C.20.02.06, C.10.03.07, and the affidavit of H C was correct as they related exclusively to other parties or were subject to the In Camera rule.

Citation
[2001] IEHC 182
Parties
Appellant: E H; Respondent: The Commissioner
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Review and Order
Outcome
partially allowed
Legal Topics
Access to Records, Personal Information, Interpretation of Statutes, In Camera Rule
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Access to Records Personal Information Interpretation of Statutes 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E H

Appellant

The Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Review and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of 'relates to personal information' under Section 6(5)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act
  2. 2 Whether certain documents are exempt from disclosure under the In Camera rule
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner erred in refusing disclosure of specific documents

Ratio Decidendi

The test for whether a record 'relates to personal information' is whether there is a sufficiently substantial link between the requester's personal information and the record. The Commissioner erred in law by refusing disclosure of the affidavit of M W and documents numbered 3, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19, as these documents, while not containing personal information, made express reference to the appellant and thus fell within the statutory test. The refusal to disclose files C.20.02.06, C.10.03.07, and the affidavit of H C was correct as they related exclusively to other parties or were subject to the In Camera rule.

Court Disposition

partially allowed

Orders

  • Disclosure of the affidavit of M W and documents numbered 3, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 is directed.
  • Refusal to disclose files C.20.02.06, C.10.03.07, and the affidavit of H C is upheld.