Mr X and Tusla (TUSLA) [2022] IEIC 119449 (19 August 2022)

Mr X and Tusla (TUSLA) [2022] IEIC 119449 (19 August 2022)

The Commissioner found that section 31(1)(a) (legal professional privilege) did not apply as TUSLA could not claim privilege over correspondence with the applicant or his legal advisors and litigation had concluded. However, section 31(1)(b) (contempt of court) applied to records relating to in camera court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] IEIC 119449
Parties
Applicant: Mr X; Respondent: Tusla
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner Following Internal Review
Outcome
Refusal of access affirmed
Legal Topics
Access to Information, Legal Professional Privilege, Personal Information Exemption, Contempt of Court, Public Interest Test, Access to Records of Deceased Persons
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Privacy Law Access to Information Legal Professional Privilege Personal Information Exemption Contempt of Court Public Interest Test +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr X

Applicant

Tusla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether TUSLA was justified in refusing access to records relating to the applicant and his children under sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b), and 37(1) of the FOI Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner found that section 31(1)(a) (legal professional privilege) did not apply as TUSLA could not claim privilege over correspondence with the applicant or his legal advisors and litigation had concluded. However, section 31(1)(b) (contempt of court) applied to records relating to in camera court proceedings, making their disclosure a contempt of court. Section 37(1) applied to the remaining withheld information as it contained personal information about individuals other than the applicant and his children, and this information could not be separated. The public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the privacy rights of the individuals concerned. Regulations under section...

Court Disposition

Refusal of access affirmed

Orders

  • TUSLA's decision to refuse access to the withheld records is affirmed under sections 31(1)(b) and 37(1) of the FOI Act.