The High Court has refused a judicial review brought by Jim and Mary Redmond over the Commissioner for Environmental Information’s decision on records relating to Coillte’s leasehold interest in forestry land at Kilcooley Abbey Estate, County Tipperary.
In a judgment delivered on 14 December 2017, Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh found that information sought about the purchaser, the sale price, the parties involved in the transfer and the valuation did not fall within the definition of environmental information in the 2007 regulations. The Commissioner had been legally correct to refuse access to those categories, she concluded.
The Redmonds had asked Coillte for details of the transaction and correspondence about proposed development. Coillte said it had disposed of a leasehold interest in 402.92 hectares, with contracts issued in March 2011 and the transaction completed on 20 December 2013. It withheld several requested details, initially citing commercial sensitivity. On internal review, Coillte instead said the information was not environmental information.
The Commissioner later decided that information about a proposed development could qualify as environmental information, but upheld the refusal on the basis that Coillte did not hold such records. The High Court found that the Commissioner’s office had made reasonable inquiries and saw no basis to quash that conclusion. The judge stressed that the court was reviewing the Commissioner’s decision on the evidence before him at the time; it was not deciding whether a development was proposed.
The judgment addressed an error in the Commissioner’s decision, which described March 2011 as the sale date. The judge said it was the date contracts were issued, not the transaction’s completion date. She found the error immaterial to the disclosure decision because public participation in the sale was outside the Commissioner’s remit. His comments on that issue had no legal effect, and the court expressed no view on whether public participation had been adequate. The error also did not establish bias or unfair procedures.
The court also held that the redacted documents Coillte provided during an attempted informal resolution were outside the scope of the appeal, which concerned Coillte’s internal review of the original request. The Commissioner had not erred by failing to rule on the redactions; the judgment said the issue could still be pursued because it had not yet been decided by the Commissioner.
The High Court refused the relief sought. It did not order disclosure of the requested records or decide the underlying concerns about public participation in the sale.