Mr J and EirGrid (FOI Act 2014) (Eirgrid) [2018] IEIC 170337 (25 May 2018)

Mr J and EirGrid (FOI Act 2014) (Eirgrid) [2018] IEIC 170337 (25 May 2018)

EirGrid was justified in refusing access to records containing commercially sensitive information under section 36(1)(b), as disclosure could prejudice competitive position and result in material financial loss. Public interest in openness was outweighed by harm to commercial interests. EirGrid was justified in refusing access to wayleave records under section 15(1)(a) as they do not exist or are not held by EirGrid. The final price of the winning tender is not commercially sensitive and must be released. EirGrid must make a fresh decision on parts of the contract with Atkins previously considered outside scope.

Citation
[2018] IEIC 170337
Parties
Applicant: Mr J; Respondent: EirGrid; Third Party: Atkins Consulting Engineers; Third Party: ESB
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Final Binding Decision
Outcome
varied
Legal Topics
Commercial Sensitivity, Public Interest, Scope of FOI Requests, Existence of Records
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Commercial Sensitivity Public Interest Scope of FOI Requests Existence of Records

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr J

Applicant

EirGrid

Respondent

Atkins Consulting Engineers

Third Party

ESB

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Final Binding Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EirGrid was justified in refusing access to records under sections 36 and 37 of the FOI Act
  2. 2 Whether EirGrid was justified in refusing access to additional records under section 15(1)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

EirGrid was justified in refusing access to records containing commercially sensitive information under section 36(1)(b), as disclosure could prejudice competitive position and result in material financial loss. Public interest in openness was outweighed by harm to commercial interests. EirGrid was justified in refusing access to wayleave records under section 15(1)(a) as they do not exist or are not held by EirGrid. The final price of the winning tender is not commercially sensitive and must be released. EirGrid must make a fresh decision on parts of the contract with Atkins previously considered outside scope.

Court Disposition

varied

Orders

  • Affirmed refusal of access to records 4-5, 7, 9-10 and 39 under section 36(1)(b)
  • Annulled refusal of access to record 1 and directed its release with redactions