Mr Q and University College Dublin (FOI Act 2014) [2016] IEIC 160099 (2 August 2016)

Mr Q and University College Dublin (FOI Act 2014) [2016] IEIC 160099 (2 August 2016)

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the comment was incomplete, incorrect, or misleading; the comment reflected the opinion of the interview panel, and disagreement with the opinion alone is insufficient to warrant amendment under section 9.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] IEIC 160099
Parties
Applicant: Mr Q; Respondent: University College Dublin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 August 2016
Procedural Posture
FOI Amendment Review / Decision of Information Commissioner Under Section 22(2) FOI Act 2014
Outcome
application refused; UCD's decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Records, Personal Information, Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Opinions in Records
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Amendment of Records Personal Information Burden of Proof Standard of Proof Opinions in Records

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Q

Applicant

University College Dublin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOI Amendment Review / Decision of Information Commissioner Under Section 22(2) FOI Act 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UCD was justified in refusing to amend a record containing personal information relating to the applicant under section 9 of the FOI Act

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the comment was incomplete, incorrect, or misleading; the comment reflected the opinion of the interview panel, and disagreement with the opinion alone is insufficient to warrant amendment under section 9.

Court Disposition

application refused; UCD's decision affirmed