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.
Whether the Council is justified in its decision, in reliance on section 23(1)(b) of the FOI Act, to refuse a request for access to the name and address and other identifying details of the person or persons who made complaints to the Council with regard to Enforcement File No. Y.
In his FOI request to the Council, dated 10 May 2010, the Applicant sought access to copies of complaints made to Cork County Council concerning Enforcement File No. Y. The Council's decision of 20 May 2010 refused the request on the basis that the relevant record was exempt from release in accordance with sections 23(1)(b) and 26(1)(a) of the FOI Act. This decision was upheld in the Council's internal review decision of 30 March 2009. The applicant then applied to this Office on 20 July 2010 for a review of the Council's decision.
In his response of 15 October 2010 to the Investigator's preliminary view, the Applicant outlined that he did not accept Mr. O'Donohoe's preliminary views and restated his belief that the complaint was made with malicious intent.
In conducting this review I have had regard to the submissions of the Council as well as those of the applicant, the content of the record at issue and the provisions of the FOI Acts.
Conducted in accordance with section 34(2) of the FOI Act by Sean Garvey, Senior Investigator, Office of the Information Commissioner (authorised by the Information Commissioner to conduct this review).
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.