Decision
Ms. X and the University College Dublin (UCD)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-158016-C9N8G1
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-158016-C9N8G1
Published on
Whether UCD’s decision to extend the timeframe for considering the applicant’s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act.
16 July 2025
In a request dated 5 March 2025, the applicant sought access to records relating to external legal advice/advisors in relation to a complaint the applicant has with UCD. On 2 April 2025, UCD informed the applicant that additional time was required to search, retrieve and collate the records and, as such, it was extending the timeframe to make a decision on her request until 1 May 2025, in accordance with section 14 of the FOI Act. On 4 April 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s decision to extend the timeframe for replying to her request.
On 14 May 2025, UCD issued its decision to the applicant on her FOI request. It should be noted, however, that this review does not concern UCD’s substantive decision on access to the records sought by the applicant. When contacted by this Office about the time extension applied by UCD, in light of the fact that UCD had now issued a decision on her request, the applicant was asked whether she wished to withdraw her application for review or to proceed to a decision on the matter. The applicant said she wanted this review to proceed to a decision.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence outlined above and to the submissions made in this case. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether UCD’s decision to extend the timeframe for considering the applicant’s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act.
Section 14(1) of the FOI Act allows an FOI body to extend the four-week period specified in section 13(1) for consideration of a request by up to four additional weeks if it considers that;
a) the request relates to such number of records, or
b) the number of other FOI requests relating either to the record or records to which the specified request relates or to information corresponding to that to which the specified request relates or to both that have been made to the FOI body concerned before the specified request was made to it and in relation to which a decision under section 13 has not been made is such,
that compliance with the four-week period specified in section 13(1) is not reasonably possible.
In its submissions to this Office, UCD said that its reliance on section 14 of the FOI Act to the period for issuing its decision to the applicant was made in error. It said that it acknowledges that the grounds for extending the four-week period are narrowly defined under the Act and do not permit extensions based on administrative challenges such as a high volume of FOI requests or staffing constraints, which it said it was experiencing at the time.
The provisions of section 14 are very specific and do not allow for the extension of the period for consideration of a request in the circumstances set out by UCD, which UCD also recognises. Accordingly, while my findings in this case can have no tangible benefit for the applicant given that UCD has already issued its substantive decision on her request, I find that UCD’s decision to extend the period for considering the applicant’s request was not in accordance with the provisions of section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul UCD’s decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant’s request under section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
____________________
Richard Crowley
Investigator