The High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) against an Information Commissioner decision requiring the release of some records about the agency’s purchase of a 39-acre site in Drogheda, Co Louth.
The appeal concerned two records: a property consultancy report prepared for the IDA and notes from an internal IDA property committee meeting. The agency had disclosed parts of the records but sought to withhold further information under several exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2014.
In July 2023, the Information Commissioner varied the IDA’s decision. The Commissioner found that some information about the IDA’s valuation and the basis for it could reveal positions in negotiations then under way, and should remain exempt at that time. The Commissioner directed release of other material, including folio details, market information and parts of the committee record, finding the IDA had not justified withholding it under the other exemptions it relied on.
The IDA brought a statutory appeal under section 24 of the Act, arguing that the Commissioner had misapplied the exemptions and the public interest test. Right to Know CLG, which had requested the records, did not participate in the appeal.
Justice Siobhán Phelan held that the Commissioner had applied the correct public interest test. She accepted that scrutiny of public spending on State property, including the checks and processes used in an acquisition, was a specific public interest reflected in Circular 17/2016 on property acquisition. The judge found that the material proposed for release showed processes and checks used by the IDA, without disclosing sensitive price information or negotiation tactics.
The court also rejected the IDA’s challenges under sections 36, 37 and 40. It found the agency’s claims of commercial or economic harm were not sufficiently linked to the specific information at issue, and that the records concerning a company’s dealings did not become personal information merely because the company name might include an individual’s name. The court did not find an error of law in the Commissioner’s approach.
The judgment did not order immediate disclosure or determine whether information withheld during ongoing negotiations would become disclosable later. Justice Phelan said any future request would require a new process and fresh consideration. She dismissed the appeal and said consequential matters, including the form of the final order if required, would be addressed after 14 days unless the parties agreed terms sooner.