K -v- Information Commissioner [2013] IEHC 373 (24 July 2013)

K -v- Information Commissioner [2013] IEHC 373 (24 July 2013)

The Information Commissioner was correct to refuse disclosure under section 22(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, as the release of the report would constitute contempt of court due to the in camera nature of the child care proceedings and the express court order prohibiting dissemination.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 373
Parties
Appellant: L. K.; Respondent: Information Commissioner; Notice Party: Health Service Executive
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal Under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, In Camera Rule, Contempt of Court, Child Care Proceedings
Administrative Law Family Law Freedom of Information In Camera Rule Contempt of Court Child Care Proceedings

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. K.

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Health Service Executive

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal Under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Information Commissioner correctly refused disclosure of a social worker's report under section 22(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 on the basis that its release would constitute contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's status as a party to the child care proceedings or her entitlement under section 27 of the Child Care Act, 1991 overrides the in camera rule and court order

Ratio Decidendi

The Information Commissioner was correct to refuse disclosure under section 22(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, as the release of the report would constitute contempt of court due to the in camera nature of the child care proceedings and the express court order prohibiting dissemination.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed