Judgment: 2024-06-07 · Court archive

High Court sets aside Information Commissioner’s decision on court lists

The court ordered the decision to release Dublin County Registrar civil motion lists to be set aside and the matter returned for a fresh decision. It did not decide the disputed procedural questions.

The High Court · [2024] IEHC 350

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • The Information Commissioner (Defendant)
  • Paul Farrell
What

The court ordered the decision to release Dublin County Registrar civil motion lists to be set aside and the matter returned for a fresh decision. It did not decide the disputed procedural questions.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin County Registrar
  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 6 January 2023; 1 November 2023

    Farrell, a litigant in person, had requested the lists covering 1 February to 24 May 2022 under the Freedom of Information Act 2014. The Courts Service refused access on 6 January 2023. On 1 November 2023, the Information Commissioner decided the records related to the general administration of the courts and directed their release.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Courts Service appealed that decision to the High Court under section 24 of the 2014 Act. The Commissioner later said he would concede the appeal and have the matter returned to his office for further consideration by a new investigator. Farrell objected to an agreed order setting aside the decision, but at the hearing said he could not take over the proceedings to resist the application, largely because of the costs involved.

The High Court has ordered the Information Commissioner’s decision to release Dublin County Registrar civil motion lists to Paul Farrell to be set aside, after the Commissioner agreed to the Courts Service’s appeal.

In a judgment delivered on 7 June 2024, Ms Justice Hyland said the matter would be remitted for a new decision. The court did not rule on whether the appeal had been brought using the correct procedure or on other legal questions raised during the proceedings.

Farrell, a litigant in person, had requested the lists covering 1 February to 24 May 2022 under the Freedom of Information Act 2014. The Courts Service refused access on 6 January 2023. On 1 November 2023, the Information Commissioner decided the records related to the general administration of the courts and directed their release.

The Courts Service appealed that decision to the High Court under section 24 of the 2014 Act. The Commissioner later said he would concede the appeal and have the matter returned to his office for further consideration by a new investigator. Farrell objected to an agreed order setting aside the decision, but at the hearing said he could not take over the proceedings to resist the application, largely because of the costs involved.

Justice Hyland said that meant Farrell’s opposition fell away, so she did not need to consider the legal issues raised by that opposition. Those included whether the appeal should have been brought under Order 130 or Order 84C of the Rules of the Superior Courts, and how principles from a separate Supreme Court decision applied to statutory appeals.

The judge observed that Order 130 still refers to the repealed Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003, while appeals are now brought under the 2014 Act. She said this left uncertainty about the correct procedural route and suggested that the Superior Courts Rules Committee could address it by updating Order 130. However, Farrell had not brought a motion seeking relief on that issue, and the court did not adjudicate on it.

The order set aside the Commissioner’s 1 November 2023 decision in case OIC-133747-V8Q5Y7. The parties were directed to appear on 11 June 2024 to make submissions on costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review