Mr X and the Lucena Clinic [2003] IEIC 010288 (4 April 2003)

Mr X and the Lucena Clinic [2003] IEIC 010288 (4 April 2003)

Disclosure of records subject to the in camera rule would constitute contempt of court and is mandatorily exempt under section 22(1)(b) of the FOI Act; records containing third-party personal information are exempt under section 28(1) unless consent is given or public interest outweighs privacy rights.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] IEIC 010288
Parties
Applicant: Mr X; Respondent: Lucena Clinic
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner Following Review
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Contempt of Court, In Camera Rule, Personal Data, Public Interest, Child Care Proceedings
Administrative Law Information Law Child Law Freedom of Information Contempt of Court In Camera Rule Personal Data Public Interest +1 more

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 X

Applicant

Lucena Clinic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner Following Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of records relating to court-appointed Guardian ad Litem's report would constitute contempt of court under the in camera rule and section 22(1)(b) of the FOI Act
  2. 2 Whether records contain personal information about third parties exempt under section 28(1) of the FOI Act
  3. 3 Whether public interest overrides privacy rights under section 28(5)

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure of records subject to the in camera rule would constitute contempt of court and is mandatorily exempt under section 22(1)(b) of the FOI Act; records containing third-party personal information are exempt under section 28(1) unless consent is given or public interest outweighs privacy rights.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Release of Records 49, 50, 51, 54, and 55 directed
  • Refusal of access to remaining 23 records affirmed