Mr W and Eirgrid [2021] IEIC OIC-104052-L1N4V9 (22 October 2021)

Mr W and Eirgrid [2021] IEIC OIC-104052-L1N4V9 (22 October 2021)

Eirgrid was justified in refusing access to further records under section 15(1)(a) as all reasonable steps were taken and no further records exist. Eirgrid was not justified in refusing access to the withheld record under sections 36(1)(b) or 36(1)(c) as neither Eirgrid nor ESB substantiated how disclosure would cause the alleged commercial harm or prejudice negotiations.

Citation
[2021] IEIC OIC-104052-L1N4V9
Parties
Applicant: Mr W; Respondent: Eirgrid
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision on Review
Outcome
partly allowed and partly refused
Legal Topics
FOI Refusal, Commercial Sensitivity, Adequacy of Search, Public Interest Override

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr W

Applicant

Eirgrid

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision on Review

  1. 1 Whether Eirgrid was justified in refusing access to records under sections 15(1)(a) and 36(1) of the FOI Act
  2. 2 Whether the withheld record is commercially sensitive or could prejudice negotiations
  3. 3 Whether all reasonable steps were taken to locate records

Ratio Decidendi

Eirgrid was justified in refusing access to further records under section 15(1)(a) as all reasonable steps were taken and no further records exist. Eirgrid was not justified in refusing access to the withheld record under sections 36(1)(b) or 36(1)(c) as neither Eirgrid nor ESB substantiated how disclosure would cause the alleged commercial harm or prejudice negotiations.

Court Disposition

partly allowed and partly refused

Orders

  • Direct release of the withheld record to the applicant
  • Refusal of access to further records under section 15(1)(a) upheld