Mr Y and Tipperary County Council [2021] IEIC OIC-107223 (22 June 2021)

Mr Y and Tipperary County Council [2021] IEIC OIC-107223 (22 June 2021)

The Council was justified in refusing the applicant's request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act because processing the request would require retrieval and examination of such a number of records as to cause substantial and unreasonable interference with and disruption of the work of its housing department, and the Council had fulfilled its obligation to assist the applicant in refining the request.

Citation
[2021] IEIC OIC-107223
Parties
Applicant: Mr Y; Respondent: Tipperary County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision on Review by Information Commissioner
Outcome
Request refused; Council's decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Voluminous Requests, Section 15(1)(c) FOI Act, Refusal of Access, Obligation to Assist Requester
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Voluminous Requests Section 15(1)(c) FOI Act Refusal of Access Obligation to Assist Requester

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Y

Applicant

Tipperary County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision on Review by Information Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was justified in refusing access under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act due to substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was justified in refusing the applicant's request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act because processing the request would require retrieval and examination of such a number of records as to cause substantial and unreasonable interference with and disruption of the work of its housing department, and the Council had fulfilled its obligation to assist the applicant in refining the request.

Court Disposition

Request refused; Council's decision affirmed