Mr B and Mayo County Council (Mayo County Council) [2022] IEIC OIC-111596 (8 April 2022)

Due to uncertainty about the precise location of the road and the records sought, it could not be determined that the Council had taken all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. The Council's decision was annulled and a fresh decision-making process was directed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2022] IEIC OIC-111596
Parties: Applicant: Mr B; Respondent: Mayo County Council
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 08 April 2022
Procedural Posture: Freedom of Information Review / Review of Refusal Under Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act
Outcome: Council's refusal annulled; fresh decision directed
Legal Topics: Refusal of Records, Reasonable Search, Identification of Records, Public Records, FOI Act Section 15(1)(a)

Administrative Law Freedom of Information Refusal of Records Reasonable Search Identification of Records Public Records FOI Act Section 15(1)(a)

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mr B

Applicant

Mayo County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Review of Refusal Under Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mayo County Council was justified in refusing access to further records relating to a road crossing the applicant's land under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that no further relevant records can be found after all reasonable steps have been taken

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Council's refusal annulled; fresh decision directed

Orders

Council to undertake a fresh decision-making process regarding the applicant's request after clarifying the precise location of the road and the records sought.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.