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.
In a request dated 15 March 2022, the applicant, a residents-� association, made the following two-part request for access to records held by the Council relating to lands granted public open spaces at their housing estate:
A. -�all communications between Cork Co Officials and Elected Representatives on the Carrigaline Municipal District Including inter alia
The original Developer and owner of [a named housing estate] including their agents
And parties who have purchased lands granted public open access at [a named housing estate] including their agents
In subsequent email exchanges, the Council informed the applicant that the request appeared to be voluminous and that it may incur fees or be refused if not refined. It offered to assist the applicant with refining the request by highlighting a number of items which required clarification and/or rephrasing. The applicant said it rejected the Council-�s suggestion that the scope of the request was not refined and again referred the Council to its request which the applicant submitted was very well defined.
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.