It seems to me that many of the arguments advanced in respect of subsection (c) are closely connected to those considered in respect of subsection (b). In effect, both the IDA and Company X argued that the release of pricing information or branding assessments could provide insights to competitors, existing clients, or potential clients, prejudicing the conduct or outcome of future negotiations in respect of brand strategy services. I note that no specific negotiations have been identified. The submissions received relate to general future negotiations of the company. As set out above, I am not convinced that the release of the high-level information contained in the records could be expected to result in the financial or competitive harms advanced by the parties. For the same reasons, I am not satisfied that release could prejudice the conduct or outcome of contractual or other negotiations of Company X. I do not accept that the release of the general pricing information contained in record 1 could be expected to provide sufficient insights to prejudice negotiations. The tendered pricing reflects the specific requirements of the project and I do not accept that release would serve to fix Company X's costings. The estimated value of the framework agreement is already in the public domain. Similarly, the high-level analysis or assessments contained in record 3 relate specifically to the previous IDA branding and, to a much lesser degree, to certain third party organisations. I do not accept that release of the record discloses proprietary information such that the future negotiations of Company X could be prejudiced. I find that the IDA was not justified in refusing access in part to records 1 and 3 on the basis of section 36(1)(c). Furthermore, having carefully considered the content of the records and the submissions of Company X, I am not satisfied that release could result in the relevant harms envisaged by subsection (c).
