Mr M and the Defence Forces (FOI Act 2014) [2016] IEIC 160091 (3 May 2016)

Mr M and the Defence Forces (FOI Act 2014) [2016] IEIC 160091 (3 May 2016)

The redacted information was personal information relating to a third party's employment and did not fall within the exceptions to the definition of personal information. The public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the privacy rights of the individual concerned. Therefore, the Defence Forces was justified in redacting the information under section 37(1) of the FOI Act.

Citation
[2016] IEIC 160091
Parties
Applicant: Mr M; Respondent: Defence Forces
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision on Review by Information Commissioner
Outcome
decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Personal Information Exemption, Public Interest Test, Right to Privacy
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Personal Information Exemption Public Interest Test Right to Privacy

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr M

Applicant

Defence Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision on Review by Information Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defence Forces was justified in redacting personal information from a record under section 37(1) of the FOI Act 2014

Ratio Decidendi

The redacted information was personal information relating to a third party's employment and did not fall within the exceptions to the definition of personal information. The public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the privacy rights of the individual concerned. Therefore, the Defence Forces was justified in redacting the information under section 37(1) of the FOI Act.

Court Disposition

decision affirmed

Orders

  • The decision of the Defence Forces to redact personal information and grant only partial access to record number 52 is affirmed.