Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The procedure relating to such appeal is contained in Statutory Instrument 325 of 1998, the Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 3) (Freedom of Information Act, 1997), 1998 as amended. The following rules are relevant:
The appellant says that if the legislature intended any person to be named as a respondent it would have said so. In particular the Statutory Instrument does not provide for the Commissioner to be a respondent but that it be served on the Commissioner.
Article 5 provides that "Member States may make a charge for supplying the information, but such charge may not exceed a reasonable cost.
The report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the experience gained in the application of that Directive, dated the 29 th June, 2000, referred to "several complaints raised the high costs and long delays associated with the review procedures".
The Commissioner, notwithstanding its not being made a respondent to the proceedings, entered a conditional appearance. It said it ought to have been named as respondent as the appellants are appealing its decision of the 15 th September, 2003 which affirmed the decision of the Department of the 7 th January, 2003, to release a report on the use of the foreshore at Cahercon Pier, Kildysart, Co. Clare, to a requester.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.