Mr X and a Local Authority [2004] IEIC 010310 (16 September 2004)

Mr X and a Local Authority [2004] IEIC 010310 (16 September 2004)

The Council was not justified in refusing access to the employment references under section 21(1)(b) because protecting a function exercised contrary to fair procedure is not permissible. Section 26(1)(a) did not apply because the references were provided by staff of a public body in the course of their duties, and section 26(2) excludes such records from the confidentiality exemption. The Council was justified in refusing access to the first record as it no longer existed.

Citation
[2004] IEIC 010310
Parties
Applicant: Mr X; Respondent: Local Authority
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision of Information Commissioner on Review
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Access to Information, Confidentiality of Employment References, Public Interest, Fair Procedure
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Access to Information Confidentiality of Employment References Public Interest Fair Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr X

Applicant

Local Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision of Information Commissioner on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was justified in refusing access to employment references under section 21(1)(b) and section 26(1)(a) of the FOI Act
  2. 2 Whether the Council took all reasonable steps to locate requested records

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was not justified in refusing access to the employment references under section 21(1)(b) because protecting a function exercised contrary to fair procedure is not permissible. Section 26(1)(a) did not apply because the references were provided by staff of a public body in the course of their duties, and section 26(2) excludes such records from the confidentiality exemption. The Council was justified in refusing access to the first record as it no longer existed.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Affirmed refusal of access to the first record as it no longer exists.
  • Annulled refusal of access to employment references and directed their release to the applicant.