Ms P and Health Service Executive [2020] IEIC 60763 (20 November 2020)

Ms P and Health Service Executive [2020] IEIC 60763 (20 November 2020)

HSE was justified in refusing access to redacted information as it constituted personal information of third parties and no sufficiently strong public interest outweighed privacy rights; refusal to release hard copy Volume One records under section 15(1)(a) was not justified as additional records were located and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] IEIC 60763
Parties
Applicant: Ms P; Respondent: Health Service Executive
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 November 2020
Procedural Posture
FOI Review / Formal Binding Decision
Outcome
partly annulled, partly upheld
Legal Topics
Access to Records, Personal Information, Public Interest, Privacy Rights
Freedom of Information Privacy Law Access to Records Personal Information Public Interest Privacy Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms P

Applicant

Health Service Executive

Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOI Review / Formal Binding Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HSE was justified in refusing access to parts of psychiatric records under sections 15(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act

Ratio Decidendi

HSE was justified in refusing access to redacted information as it constituted personal information of third parties and no sufficiently strong public interest outweighed privacy rights; refusal to release hard copy Volume One records under section 15(1)(a) was not justified as additional records were located and require a fresh decision-making process.

Court Disposition

partly annulled, partly upheld

Orders

  • HSE to conduct fresh decision-making process for hard copy Volume One records located.
  • HSE's partial refusal of access to 35 pages under sections 37(1) and 37(7) upheld.