Decisions

The Commissioner found that the Council was had not justified its decision to refuse record 1 and part of record 3 under article 9(2)(c). He found that article 9(2)(c) applied to record 2 and part of record 3, but that the public interest favoured the release of those records, save for handwritten notes within record 3. The Commissioner found that the Council had not justified its decision to refuse further information on the basis that it had not provided evidence that it had conducted adequate searches.

The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the redacted information on the basis of the exception in article 9(1)(b) and that the interest in refusal outweighs the public interest in disclosure

The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the redacted information on the basis of the exception in article 9(1)(b) and that the interest in refusal outweighs the public interest in disclosure

The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in refusing the request as invalid under article 6(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations

The Commissioner found that: (a) The scope of the request does not include documents which impact on, or are incorporated by reference into, the PPP contract; (b) The PPP contract as a whole is environmental information; (c) TII was not justified in refusing access to the PPP contract on the grounds that the request is manifestly unreasonable; and (d) It is not appropriate in this case to exercise the power in article 12(5)(c), so TII must give fresh consideration to the appellant’s request for information

The Commissioner found that the records at issue are "environmental information" within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. He annulled the Department's decision and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the records

The Commissioner was not satisfied that refusal of the withheld information was justified on the grounds of legal privilege nor was he satisfied that any adverse impact on the course of justice had been made out such that the grounds for refusal contained in article 9(1)(b) could be relied on in the circumstances of the case. He directed the Council to release the information requested. He also remitted the matter to the Council to determine whether any further information held by the Council at the time of the request had been withheld from the appellant

The Commissioner found that: (1) The fee charged by the Department in each case was not reasonable, within the meaning of article 15(1) of the AIE Regulations; and (2) The Department has not complied with the duty in article 15(2) of the AIE Regulations because the published fees are not reasonable.

The Commissioner found that the supporting letter at issue is “environmental information” within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. He annulled the Council’s decision and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the letter.

The Commissioner found that the Department's refusal to provide access to the information requested was not justified under article 9(2)(a).