Mr Y and Cork County Council [2024] IEIC 149303 (27 November 2024)

Mr Y and Cork County Council [2024] IEIC 149303 (27 November 2024)

The Council was not justified in refusing access to records under parts 1 to 3 and 9 to 12 of the request as it failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records; refusal based solely on staff assertions was insufficient. For parts 4 to 8, the Council was justified in refusing access as reasonable electronic searches were conducted and no relevant records were found.

Citation
[2024] IEIC 149303
Parties
Applicant: Mr Y; Respondent: Cork County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner Following Review Under Section 22(2) of the FOI Act
Outcome
Varied. Refusal of parts 4 to 8 affirmed; refusal of parts 1 to 3 and 9 to 12 annulled and remitted for fresh decision.
Legal Topics
Refusal of Access to Records, Section 15(1)(a) FOI Act, Reasonable Search Obligations, Homelessness Assessments, Emergency Accommodation
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Refusal of Access to Records Section 15(1)(a) FOI Act Reasonable Search Obligations Homelessness Assessments Emergency Accommodation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Y

Applicant

Cork County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner Following Review Under Section 22(2) of the FOI Act

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 ground that the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps have been taken.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was not justified in refusing access to records under parts 1 to 3 and 9 to 12 of the request as it failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records; refusal based solely on staff assertions was insufficient. For parts 4 to 8, the Council was justified in refusing access as reasonable electronic searches were conducted and no relevant records were found.

Court Disposition

Varied. Refusal of parts 4 to 8 affirmed; refusal of parts 1 to 3 and 9 to 12 annulled and remitted for fresh decision.

Orders

  • Council to conduct a fresh decision-making process on parts 1 to 3 and 9 to 12 of the applicant's request.
  • Refusal of parts 4 to 8 of the request affirmed under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.