Ms. X and Dublin Docklands Development Authority (FOI Act 2014) [2016] IEIC 150208 (20 January 2016)

Ms. X and Dublin Docklands Development Authority (FOI Act 2014) [2016] IEIC 150208 (20 January 2016)

The Authority failed to justify that disclosure of most records would be contrary to the public interest or cause the commercial harms claimed. Only specific parts of records were found to be exempt under commercial sensitivity or legal professional privilege. The remainder must be released, subject to redaction of identifying information.

Citation
[2016] IEIC 150208
Parties
Applicant: Ms. X; Respondent: Dublin Docklands Development Authority
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision of Information Commissioner Following Review
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
FOI Exemptions, Deliberative Process, Commercial Sensitivity, Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Balancing
Administrative Law Freedom of Information FOI Exemptions Deliberative Process Commercial Sensitivity Legal Professional Privilege Public Interest Balancing

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms. X

Applicant

Dublin Docklands Development Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision of Information Commissioner Following Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority was justified in refusing access to records under sections 29(1), 36(1)(b), and 36(1)(c) of the FOI Act 2014
  2. 2 Whether parts of the records are exempt under legal professional privilege (section 31(1)(a))
  3. 3 Whether the public interest outweighs the exemptions claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority failed to justify that disclosure of most records would be contrary to the public interest or cause the commercial harms claimed. Only specific parts of records were found to be exempt under commercial sensitivity or legal professional privilege. The remainder must be released, subject to redaction of identifying information.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Authority refusing access is annulled except for specified exempt portions.
  • Release of records 1-11 is directed, subject to redaction of exempt information and identifying details of individual apartments.