Ms K and Tusla (Tusla) [2022] IEIC 120121 (13 October 2022)

Ms K and Tusla (Tusla) [2022] IEIC 120121 (13 October 2022)

Tusla was justified in refusing access to information under section 31(1)(a) as the redacted correspondence was protected by legal professional privilege, and under section 37(1) as the information comprised personal information of third parties or joint personal information that could not be separated. However,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] IEIC 120121
Parties
Applicant: Ms K; Respondent: Tusla
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner Following Internal Review
Outcome
Partly affirmed and partly varied
Legal Topics
Access to Information, Legal Professional Privilege, Personal Information Exemption, Public Interest Test
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Access to Information Legal Professional Privilege Personal Information Exemption Public Interest Test

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms K

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 parts of the applicant's personnel file and related records under sections 31(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act

Ratio Decidendi

Tusla was justified in refusing access to information under section 31(1)(a) as the redacted correspondence was protected by legal professional privilege, and under section 37(1) as the information comprised personal information of third parties or joint personal information that could not be separated. However, pages 89-93 of File 3 fell within the exclusion for staff functions and must be released, except for staff mobile phone numbers, which remain exempt.

Court Disposition

Partly affirmed and partly varied

Orders

  • Tusla's refusal of access under sections 31(1)(a) and 37(1) is affirmed except for pages 89-93 of File 3, which must be released to the applicant with staff mobile phone numbers redacted.