Mr W and Roscommon County Council [2021] IEIC 96032 (12 February 2021)

Mr W and Roscommon County Council [2021] IEIC 96032 (12 February 2021)

The Council was justified in refusing access to records for parts 1 and 5 of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act as no relevant records exist. However, the Council failed to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to ascertain the existence of records relevant to part 6 of the request. Therefore, the refusal of part 6 was not justified and must be reconsidered.

Citation
[2021] IEIC 96032
Parties
Applicant: Mr W; Respondent: Roscommon County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 February 2021
Procedural Posture
FOI Review / Decision of Information Commissioner Following Review of Council's Refusal
Outcome
Varied
Legal Topics
Refusal of Access to Records, Section 15(1)(a) FOI Act, Obligation to Search for Records, Creation of Records, Internal Review Process
Freedom of Information Administrative Law Refusal of Access to Records Section 15(1)(a) FOI Act Obligation to Search for Records Creation of Records Internal Review Process

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr W

Applicant

Roscommon County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOI Review / Decision of Information Commissioner Following Review of Council's Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was justified in refusing access to records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act for parts 1, 5, and 6 of the applicant’s request

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was justified in refusing access to records for parts 1 and 5 of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act as no relevant records exist. However, the Council failed to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to ascertain the existence of records relevant to part 6 of the request. Therefore, the refusal of part 6 was not justified and must be reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Varied

Orders

  • The Council's decision to refuse part 6 of the applicant’s request is annulled. The Council is directed to conduct a fresh decision-making process for part 6.
  • The Council's decision to refuse parts 1 and 5 is affirmed.