Mr Y and Cork County Council (Cork County Council) [2022] IEIC OIC-109733 (8 March 2022)

Mr Y and Cork County Council (Cork County Council) [2022] IEIC OIC-109733 (8 March 2022)

The Council was justified in refusing access to records under section 15(1)(a) for parts 1-6 and 9 of the request, as it demonstrated that no further records exist or could be found after reasonable searches. However, the Council failed to justify its refusal for parts 7, 8, and 10 due to insufficient detail on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] IEIC OIC-109733
Parties
Applicant: Mr Y; Respondent: Cork County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 March 2022
Procedural Posture
FOI Appeal / Decision of Information Commissioner Following Internal Review
Outcome
partly affirmed and partly annulled
Legal Topics
FOI Refusal, Adequacy of Search, Creation of Records, Public Body Obligations
Freedom of Information Administrative Law FOI Refusal Adequacy of Search Creation of Records Public Body Obligations

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Y

Applicant

Cork County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOI Appeal / Decision of Information Commissioner Following Internal Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cork County Council was justified in refusing access to records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that the records do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps have been taken
  2. 2 Whether section 17(4) of the FOI Act requires the Council to create new records by extracting data from electronic or hard copy files

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was justified in refusing access to records under section 15(1)(a) for parts 1-6 and 9 of the request, as it demonstrated that no further records exist or could be found after reasonable searches. However, the Council failed to justify its refusal for parts 7, 8, and 10 due to insufficient detail on searches and explanations, necessitating a fresh decision-making process for those parts.

Court Disposition

partly affirmed and partly annulled

Orders

  • Council's refusal under section 15(1)(a) affirmed for parts 1-6 and 9 of the request
  • Council's refusal annulled for parts 7, 8, and 10; Council directed to conduct a fresh decision-making process for these parts