The High Court has ruled that Coillte cannot rely on exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act to refuse access to environmental information under the AIE Regulations, because Coillte is an exempt agency outside the FOI regime.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland delivered the judgment on 28 April 2023 in a case brought by the Commissioner for Environmental Information. The Commissioner had referred legal questions arising from People Over Wind’s appeal against Coillte’s refusal of records concerning a proposed wind farm in Cullenagh, Co Laois.
The records sought included board minutes and papers relating to the project. Coillte had relied, among other grounds, on sections of the FOI Act concerning deliberations, management functions, negotiations and legal privilege. It also cited section 33 of the Forestry Act 1988 and grounds under the AIE Regulations. Those were Coillte’s stated reasons for withholding the records, not findings made in this proceeding about whether the grounds applied.
The judge concluded that FOI exemptions can protect the confidentiality of public bodies’ proceedings for the purpose of Regulation 8(a)(iv), where the records qualify as exempt under the FOI Act. But that protection depends on the body being subject to the Act. Coillte is listed as an exempt agency and therefore cannot invoke those FOI exemptions as if it were covered by the Act.
The court also ruled that Coillte’s exclusion from the FOI Act does not establish that its proceedings are confidential under some other law. The judgment left open whether Coillte could rely on another applicable legal provision, including section 33 of the Forestry Act.
The court held that Regulation 8(a)(iv) recognises confidentiality protections already provided by law; it does not create a new category of confidentiality for environmental information requests. It did not answer a separate question about whether FOI provisions protect commercial or industrial confidentiality, because its answer on Coillte’s status meant that question would have no concrete application to the appeal.
The judgment determined the referred legal questions, not the Commissioner’s appeal on the records themselves. The Commissioner had postponed a decision on that appeal pending the High Court’s determination. The High Court said the matter would be listed on a date to be agreed for costs and any other orders.