Decision
Mr X and University College Dublin
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161534-Y5L4S0
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161534-Y5L4S0
Published on
Whether UCD was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to further records relating to the membership of the UCD Medicine Taught Programmes Board
22 October 2025
In a request dated 20 February 2025, the applicant sought access to the names/identities of the persons who held the office and/or fulfilled the capacity which, according to the Governing Board’s Terms of Reference, involves membership of the UCD Medicine Taught Programmes Board in Academic Years 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25. The applicant also requested the names/identities of the Medicine Governing Board’s voting and non-voting members. On 20 March 2025, UCD issued a decision granting the applicant’s request. On 23 March 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of UCD’s decision on the basis that the response to his request was inadequate. On 15 April 2025, UCD affirmed its original decision that the request had been granted in full. It noted that additional material was provided to the applicant on 11 April 2025 which had been erroneously omitted from the material furnished to the applicant on 20 March 2025. On 15 August 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s decision on the basis that the records released to him did not provide him with the names/identities of the individuals who held the positions that involve ex officio membership of the Governing Board.
During the course of our review, the Investigating Officer put it to UCD that, in his view, it had interpreted the scope of the applicant’s request too narrowly. UCD responded to say that it accepted that its original interpretation of the applicant’s request may not have been accurate. UCD said it would welcome the opportunity to issue a fresh decision on the applicant’s request based on the clarified scope.
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 by both parties. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
UCD’s original position was that it had granted the applicant’s request in full. However, the applicant considers that further records ought to exist. This is, in essence, a refusal, pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to provide further relevant records on the ground that no further relevant records exist or can be found. Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether UCD was justified in refusing to grant access to any further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Section 15(1)(a) of the Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. The role of this Office in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at his/her decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records.
At this point, I wish to clarify that the de novo nature of our review process essentially means that the review is based on the circumstances and the law as they pertain at the time of my decision and is not confined to the basis upon which the FOI body reached its decision.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant maintained that he had distinguished between office and capacity as he was not sure if all members of the Board were strictly speaking office holders or just holders of a position or capacity. He also explained that he had used the words “and/or” because he wanted to cover the eventuality of some members holding more than one position on the Board.
When reviewing the applicant’s request to this Office, it appeared to the Investigating Officer that UCD had interpreted the scope of the applicant’s request too narrowly. In its internal review decision, UCD stated that it had provided the applicant with the names of the individuals who fulfilled the capacity as members of the Board and that these were the individuals who attended the Board’s meetings during the 2020-2025 period. It seemed to the Investigating Officer that UCD had incorrectly considered the applicant’s request for the names/identities of persons who held the office “and/or” fulfilled the capacity of members of the Board as being satisfied by either providing him with the names of the officeholders on the Board or the names of those who fulfilled their capacity and attended the Board or both. Furthermore, UCD appeared not to have addressed the final part of the applicant’s original request, which was for the names/identities of the Medicine Governing Board's voting and non-voting members.
The Investigating Officer suggested to UCD that the scope of the applicant’s original request includes records a) identifying all voting and non-voting members of the Medicine Governing Board for the relevant academic years and b) indicating the particular office or capacity held by each, without any distinction as to whether they actually attended meetings. UCD responded, accepting the clarification of the scope of the request as outlined by the Investigating Officer and acknowledging that its original interpretation of the request may not have been accurate. UCD also stated that, in its view, the wording of the applicant’s request presented a degree of ambiguity. As noted above, UCD said it would welcome the opportunity to issue a fresh decision on the applicant’s request based on the clarified scope.
In the circumstances outlined above, I cannot find that UCD has taken all reasonable steps to locate all of the information sought by the applicant. As such, I find that UCD was not justified in effectively refusing access to further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
It seems to me that the most appropriate course of action to take at this stage is to annul the decision of UCD to refuse access to further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act. The effect of this is that UCD must consider the applicant’s request afresh and make a new, first instance decision in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act. The applicant will have a right to an internal review and a review by this Office if he is not satisfied with UCD’s decision.
Finally, I appreciate that my decision will be disappointing to the applicant. However, I accept UCD’s position that the wording of his request presented a degree of ambiguity. Notwithstanding this comment, it seems to me that if UCD considered that the wording of the applicant’s request was unclear, it should have consulted him to clarify his request before proceeding to a decision. If UCD is still unclear about the scope of the applicant’s request, I suggest that it contact him directly to clarify precisely what information he is seeking.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul UCD’s decision and direct it to undertake a fresh decision-making process, in accordance with the provisions 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