Decision
Mr. X & Dublin Dental University Hospital
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-158839-L2R0F5
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-158839-L2R0F5
Published on
Whether the Hospital was justified in refusing the applicant’s request under section 10 of the FOI Act for a statement of reasons for a number of acts the applicant alleged it had made and which had affected him
15 May 2026
In a request dated 8 February 2025, the applicant sought from the Hospital, under section 10 of the FOI Act, a statement of reasons for a number of alleged acts that he claimed had adversely affected him and in respect of which he had a material interest. The request related to dental treatment the applicant had undergone at the Hospital. Specifically, the applicant sought a statement of reasons for nine alleged acts of the Hospital, as follows:
1. The Hospital’s alleged decision to outline that the applicant did not require surgery for a Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain issue.
2. The Hospital’s alleged decision to communicate to the HSE that no further treatment was proposed or required “…taking into consideration that I am in constant pain and have suffered with bruxism and cracked teeth to the extent that they required extraction”.
3. The Hospital’s alleged decision not to provide an appointment “for a bite raising splint” in July 2024, despite the applicant stating that he had requested such an appointment.
4. The Hospital’s alleged decision to conduct only an Orthopantomogram (OPG x-ray) and no other form of scan (“No MRI or other X-ray based scan”).
5. The Hospital’s alleged decision not to provide a summary of a consultation and findings to the applicant.
6. The Hospital’s alleged decision to not provide, or recommend that the HSE provide, the applicant with a splint for TMJ pain.
7. The Hospital’s alleged decision to not propose any treatment to the HSE regarding a large number of teeth that the applicant states he is missing.
8. The Hospital’s alleged decision to not provide any dental report and findings or any costed dental treatment plan to a named dental surgeon.
9. The Hospital’s alleged decision to inform the HSE that it had planned no treatment for the applicant “…despite my chronic dental pain issues”.
The applicant also sought access from the Hospital to certain records; the request for access to records does not form part of this review.
On 14 March 2025, the Hospital issued a decision on the request to the applicant, purporting to comply with section 10 by providing the statement of reasons sought for the actions outlined in the FOI request. The applicant remained dissatisfied with the decision of the Hospital and, on 7 April 2025, sought an internal review of the decision. In particular, the applicant took issue with a number of statements in the Hospital’s decision, and also claimed that a certain aspect of his request for a statement of reasons had not been addressed in the decision.
In its internal review decision of 16 April 2025, the Hospital addressed the specific points of dissatisfaction that the applicant had outlined, in purported satisfaction of his request for a statement of reasons. However, the applicant remained dissatisfied and on 16 May 2025 applied to this Office for a review of the Hospital’s decision on his request. In particular, in his application to this Office for a review of the Hospital’s decision on his request, the applicant stated: “Despite the internal review of the section 10 statement of reasons [the Hospital] has failed to answer [the question of] why I was not accepted for treatment? [applicant’s emphasis].”
It should be noted that in the course of conducting this review, a question arose as to whether the applicant had in fact had sight of the Hospital’s internal review decision. This question arose in circumstances where it appears that the Hospital issued its internal review decision to the applicant by way of an encrypted (password-protected) email that the applicant was unable to access. It appears that the Hospital emailed the applicant on 22 April 2025 offering to re-send the internal review decision to him via non-encrypted email. It is not apparent that any response was forthcoming from the applicant to this email. I attempted to contact the applicant via email on a number of occasions to seek to establish the precise sequence of events in this regard, and specifically to determine if he had at any point had sight of the Hospital’s internal review decision. For the avoidance of any doubt, I also provided a copy of the internal review decision to the applicant and sought the applicant’s views in relation to same. There was no response from the applicant to my attempted communication. I note that, in his application to this Office for a review of the Hospital’s decision, the applicant specifically refers to “…the internal review of May 2025”. In this case, the internal review decision was dated 16 April 2025 (not May 2025). However, in light of the applicant’s references (in his correspondence with this Office) to an internal review decision, on the balance I am satisfied that he has had sight of the internal review decision that the Hospital issued to him on 16 April 2025.
Furthermore, in the course of conducting this review, I formed the view that I was required to invite the applicant to make further submissions on an additional matter that I considered relevant to the review, the details of which I outline below. I subsequently wrote again to the applicant to put him on notice of this new material matter, and invited him to make any submissions that he wished in relation to same. The applicant subsequently made submissions on this point, and I have fully considered same.
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 all correspondence exchanged by the parties, the applicant’s comments in his application for review and the submissions made by the Hospital. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is solely concerned with whether the Hospital has complied with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act in response to the applicant’s request seeking a statement of reasons for the nine alleged acts of the Hospital outlined above, relating to his dental treatment.
Before I deal with the substantive issues arising, I should explain for the benefit of the applicant that this Office has no remit to investigate complaints, to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies. As such, we cannot examine the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the acts or decisions taken by public bodies for which the statements of reasons are sought.
Analysis and Findings
Section 10 of the FOI Act provides that a person who is affected by an act of an FOI body, and has a material interest in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates, is entitled to a statement of reasons for the act as well as a statement of any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of that act.
Taking section 10 as a whole, this Office considers that the word "act" in the section must be interpreted as the exercise of (or refusal to exercise) a power or function which may result in the conferring or withholding of a benefit. In addition, the reasons for the act must have a bearing on the outcome of whether a person receives or does not receive a benefit or suffers a loss or a penalty or other disadvantage. In other words, if the same outcome would result regardless of the reasons for the act in question then section 10 does not apply to that act.
There are many acts or decisions taken by FOI bodies where section 10 has no relevance. The Oireachtas could not have intended that FOI bodies should be required, on demand, to provide a written statement of reasons and findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of every single action of the body. There will be many instances where a number of secondary actions/decision are taken in the course of making a substantive decision which affects a person and where that person has a material interest in a matter affected by that substantive decision or to which it relates. However, section 10 does not entitle a person affected by the substantive decision to a statement of reasons in respect of each and every action which was taken in arriving at that decision. Furthermore, the provision does not require an FOI body to justify the substantive decision concerned.
Section 10(5) provides that a person has a material interest in a matter affected by an act of an FOI body or to which it relates if the consequence or effect of the act may be to confer on or withhold from the person a benefit without also conferring it on or withholding it from persons in general or a class of persons which is of significant size having regard to all the circumstances and of which the person is a member.
The act for which a statement of reasons is sought must affect a person particularly, albeit not necessarily exclusively. Where the act of an FOI body affects a wide class of people (i.e. a class of significant size having regard to all the circumstances) and applies equally to all members of the class, an applicant who is a member of that class does not have a material interest in a matter affected by the act for the purposes of the FOI Act.
The specific actions of the Hospital in respect of which the applicant sought a statement of reasons under section 10 of the FOI Act have been outlined above. As further noted above, the Hospital has purported to provide the applicant with a statement of reasons for the impugned acts.
It should first of all be noted that, in its submissions, the Hospital set out its position that the applicant had a “material interest” in a matter affected by an “act”, as those terms are defined in section 10(5) and 10(13) of the FOI Act respectively – in other words, it accepted that the acts complained of were “acts” for the purpose of section 10, and that the applicant had a material interest in those acts, such as would entitle him to the statement of reasons sought.
Having accepted this point, the Hospital argued that it had complied with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act. By way of background, it stated that in October 2023 it had received a referral letter in respect of the applicant from his GMP, not his General Dentist Practitioner (GDP). The Hospital noted that the referral letter was not addressed to any particular Department or Dentist within its organisation, and that it contained very little information about what dental issues the applicant was experiencing. The Hospital stated that, as such, the referral was allocated to its Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department to arrange assessment. It stated that, prior to this assessment, an appointment letter was sent to the applicant, clearly stating the appointment was with its Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department.
The Hospital stated that the applicant attended for his appointment on 22 July 2024, was clinically examined and an OPG radiograph was taken. It stated that a conversation took place around splints for the applicant’s pain. The Hospital stated that the applicant was not happy with the information received and stated that he did not understand why his appointment was in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department. The Hospital stated that the applicant left the clinic without any follow-up and that, as such, there was no further review appointment made for him in the Hospital and he was discharged from treatment.
The Hospital stated that it sent a letter detailing the above examination and conversation to the applicant’s GMP, who had referred the applicant to the Hospital, on 23 July 2024. This letter, according to the Hospital, was also copied to a relevant staff member in the applicant’s local Health Centre and to his GDP.
In relation to the substantive point – whether it had complied with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act – the Hospital simply stated that in its initial decision on the applicant’s request it had provided the statement of reasons sought, and that these reasons had been reiterated in its internal review decision.
As noted above, the applicant did not respond to efforts that I made to contact him to determine whether he had had sight of the Hospital’s internal review decision, and nor did he respond to my request to provide his views in relation to the copy of the internal review decision that I provided to him. However, in his application to this Office for a review, he did outline in some detail the basis for his dissatisfaction with the Hospital’s initial decision on his request and, as noted above, made reference to an internal review decision of May 2025.
In particular, in his submissions the applicant essentially disputed the version of events provided by the Hospital in its decision (which are broadly repeated in its submissions, which I have described above). While I do not consider it necessary to go into the detail of every alternative versions of events provided by the applicant, for example he disputed the Hospital’s account regarding the provision of a splint, and its assertions that he left abruptly after his consultation (stating that the consultation had finished and he had to catch a train), that he had refused treatment (stating that in fact the Hospital had not accepted him for treatment), and that he had been discharged from the hospital (stating that he had made a follow-up appointment the very next morning). As noted above, the applicant also stated that the Hospital had “…failed to answer [the question of] why I was not accepted for treatment?”.
As outlined above, in the course of conducting this review, I formed the view that an additional material matter arose, and sought and received submissions from the applicant in relation to same. The details of the matter, and of the applicant’s submissions, are as follows.
As noted above, in its initial decision and its internal review decision on the FOI request, the Hospital accepted that the acts complained of were “acts” for the purposes of section 10, and that the applicant had a material interest in a matter affected by the relevant acts. However, upon a review of the information at issue I formed the preliminary view that impugned acts/decisions of the Hospital may not be “acts” for the purposes of section 10 of the FOI Act. My preliminary view was that, on the basis of the information before me, the impugned acts/decisions of the Hospital – essentially, the decisions taken by the Hospital that resulted in it not referring the applicant for further treatment – did not constitute the exercise of a power or function by the Hospital, and furthermore that they were not acts/decisions that might be said to have withheld a benefit from the applicant. Rather, it seemed to me that the impugned acts of the Hospital might be said to have been secondary acts in the Hospital’s decision-making process that led to the substantive decision – one that I considered did withhold a benefit from the applicant – not to refer or accept him for further treatment.
As referenced above, I wrote to the applicant to put him on notice of this preliminary view, and to invite him to make any submissions that he wished. In submissions subsequently received from the applicant, he argued that the acts complained of were in fact “acts” for the purposes of section 10. In particular, he pointed to what he described as the broad definition of an “act” in section 10. The applicant argued that, under section 10(13), an "act" of an FOI body is defined broadly as "any act taken...by the FOI body concerned”. The applicant also argued that the guidance and past decisions of this Office confirmed that an “act” for the purposes of section 10 includes administrative decisions that result in a specific outcome for an individual. He argued that the refusal to provide treatment was a “definitive decision” made by the hospital that resulted in the withholding of a healthcare service.
The applicant also sought to draw a distinction between the requested statement of reasons, on one hand, and the clinical judgement of the relevant professionals on the other. He stated that, while he acknowledged that section 10 does not empower this Office to review the appropriateness of the particular clinical judgement, the right to a statement of reasons is a separate matter. He argued that he was not asking this Office to change the medical decision of the Hospital, but to enforce his statutory right to know the findings on material issues of fact and the reasons that led to that decision.
The applicant also argued that he was clearly “affected” by the impugned acts of the Hospital. He stated that the refusal to further refer him had halted his course of treatment and impacted his health outcomes. He noted that the guidance of this Office on section 10 states that section 10 is designed to ensure that individuals understand the basis of decisions that affect them directly.
The applicant made further arguments to the effect that he had a material interest in the purported “acts” of the Hospital. He stated that healthcare treatment is a "benefit" as per Section 10(13), and that by refusing the proposed treatment, the Hospital had directly withheld this benefit from him.
Finally, in relation to whether he had been “affected” by the acts of the Hospital, he applicant argued that he clearly had been. He argued that the refusal of the Hospital to further refer or treat him had halted his course of treatment and impacted his healthcare outcomes.
As noted above, in its submissions the Hospital accepted that the acts complained of by the applicant were “acts” in respect of which the applicant was entitled to a statement of reasons under section 10 of the FOI Act, and that he had a material interest in these acts. The applicant’s submissions in support of his view that the acts complained of were “acts” for the purposes of section 10 have also been set out above.
I have considered the matter in light of the applicant’s submissions, and I accept his arguments in part. I note that, while his initial request to the Hospital under section 10 for a statement of reasons was divided into nine parts, subsequently the applicant expressed what I consider to be the overarching act for which he seeks a statement of reasons – the decision not to refer him for further dental treatment (or, in the applicant’s own words, the question of “…why I was not accepted for treatment?”). I consider that a decision not to refer the applicant for medical treatment is an act of the Hospital to which section 10 applies. I further take the view that the applicant is entitled under section 10 to a statement of reasons for the acts specified in his nine-part request that relate to the decision not to offer or provide him with further treatment. I make this finding in respect of parts 1, 2, 3 4, 6, 7 (to the extent that this part of the request relates to the Hospital’s alleged failure “…to propose any treatment to the HSE”) and 9.
However, I take a different view in relation to the remaining two parts of the applicant’s request (parts 5 and 8). As noted previously, in my opinion the substantive act by the Hospital was its decision not to refer the applicant for further dental treatment. The acts complained of in parts 5 and 8 of the applicant’s request to the Hospital, it seems to me, are either unrelated to that question, or are secondary acts/decisions of the Hospital, which fed into the ultimate substantive act/decision not to refer him for further treatment.
In relation to the applicant’s submissions on this point, I would note that I fully agree with his assessment of the definition of an “act” in section 10(13). However, it is also the case that an “act” for the purposes of section 10 must be distinguished from what might be more accurately characterised as requests for specific information. Moreover, and as noted above, the requirement to provide a statement of reasons does not apply to every action of an FOI body. The position of this Office is that the Oireachtas could not have intended that FOI bodies should be required, on demand, to provide a written statement of reasons and findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of every single action of the FOI body and its officials, and our view is that the word "act" in the section must be interpreted as the exercise of (or refusal to exercise) a power or function which may result in the conferring or withholding of a benefit.
I do not accept that each of the impugned acts/decisions of the Hospital in parts 5 and 8 of the applicant’s request can be said to constitute the exercise of (or refusal to exercise) a power or function. At points 5 and 8 of his request the applicant seeks statements of reasons for the alleged decisions of the Hospital not to provide a summary of the consultation “by post or other” (part 5 of the request) and not to provide a report, findings or any costed dental treatment the applicant’s GDP (part 8 of the request). Noting that the Hospital explicitly disputes the applicant’s assertion that it did not provide these summaries, reports etc, in any case I do not consider that such decisions (if in fact taken by the Hospital) are related to the act for which I have determined the applicant is entitled to a statement of reasons (ie. to refer, or not refer, him for further treatment for his dental issues). To my mind, these acts, if they occurred, are best characterised as secondary decisions taken in the course of the Hospital’s deliberation or decision-making processes that it followed in order to come to the ultimate determination to exercise the relevant power or function.
Furthermore, in order for a decision or act of an FOI body to constitute an “act” for the purposes of section 10, the position of this Office is that the reasons for the impugned act must have a bearing on the outcome of whether a person receives or does not receive a benefit or suffers a loss or a penalty or other disadvantage. While I am satisfied that the overarching decision to refer or not refer the applicant for further medical treatment (which, as noted above, I view parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the applicant’s request as addressing) is one that has a bearing on such an outcome, I am not satisfied that this is the case in respect of parts 5 and 8 of the request. My view in respect of that the acts/decisions specified in these two parts of the applicant’s request, if they occurred, is that they were steps in the Hospital’s broader determination of the decision not to refer him for further treatment, which as I have stated is the substantive act that might be said to have had a bearing on the outcome of whether he received or did not receive a benefit or suffer a loss.
In short, it is my view that the acts of the Hospital complained of in parts 5 and 8 of the applicant’s request do not involve the exercise of (or refusal to exercise) a power or function which might result in the conferring or withholding of a benefit. I take the view that the relevant “act” (that is to say, the exercise of the relevant power or function) in respect of which an eligible party may be entitled to a statement of reasons under section 10 in this context (in other words the substantive act that might have resulted in the conferring or withholding of a benefit) is the ultimate decision taken by the Hospital in relation to the applicant’s dental treatment. While parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 go to the question of why this ultimate decision was taken, I find that parts 5 and 8 do not do so. Section 10 does not, in my view, require the Hospital to provide an explanation, upon request, for the reasons it took various steps in its deliberations or decision-making processes, in the course of making a determination on whether or how to exercise that power or function.
With regard to those parts of the applicant’s request that I have found do constitute “acts” for the purposes of section 10, I would further note that I accept that the applicant has a material interest in those acts for the purposes of section 10(5). As stated above, section 10(5) provides that a person has a material interest in a matter affected by an act of an FOI body or to which such an act relates if the consequence or effect of the act may be to confer a benefit on, or withhold a benefit from, the person without also conferring the benefit on or withholding it from persons in general or a class of persons which is of significant size having regard to all the circumstances and of which the person is a member. In circumstances where at issue is the applicant’s dental health, and the key question is whether or not he should have received further dental treatment, it seems self-evident that a decision to refer, or not refer, him for further treatment might serve to confer a benefit on, or withhold a benefit from, him individually, without also conferring it on or withholding it from people or any class of persons of which he might be a member.
In relation to the aspects of the applicant’s request that comprise acts in respect of which I have found he is entitled to a statement of reasons, and in respect of which I have accepted he has a material interest, it remains for me to examine whether the statement of reasons actually provided by the Hospital was sufficient for the purposes of section 10 of the FOI Act.
In advance of an examination of this point, there is a preliminary observation that I would make in relation to the shortcomings identified by the applicant in the statement of reasons provided by the Hospital, as follows. Having considered the request itself, the Hospital’s decision on the request, and the applicant’s application to this Office, it seems to me that the applicant primarily takes issue not with the adequacy, as such, of the statement of reasons provided by the Hospital, but rather with what he clearly views as incorrect statements of fact regarding the sequence of events that occurred at and after his appointment. While such a dispute (regarding the correct sequence of events) does not seem to me to be a matter that falls to be addressed in a review of the Hospital’s decision on a request under section 10 of the FOI Act, for the sake of completeness I should note that, in any case, it does not seem not possible for this Office to determine – on the basis of the limited information available to us – which of the disputed sequences of events is accurate or correct in this case.
Turning to the question of whether the statement of reasons issued by the Hospital in respect of parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 of the applicant’s request is in fact adequate for the purposes of section 10, I note that, in his application to this Office, the applicant indicated his view that the Hospital had not, in either its initial decision or its internal review decision, provided him with a statement satisfactorily explaining the reason(s) why he had not been accepted for treatment, or referred on for further treatment. I have reviewed the statement of reasons as supplied by the Hospital, and am unable to agree with the proposition that the Hospital’s statement of reasons is lacking insofar as it relates to its decisions regarding the treatment (or lack thereof) that ought to have been provided to the applicant. Indeed, I take the view that the statement of reasons is detailed and comprehensive in describing the reasons why further treatment was not offered to the applicant. In particular, I note that in the statement of reasons the Hospital provided the following explanations regarding the decisions it made in respect of treatment for the applicant:
• “[The applicant] asked about his current splints and it was explained that we were not familiar with the splint fabricated by [the applicant’s GDP] and in general we would not advise any shop made splints for pain management. [The applicant] asked further about advanced splints and named a few brands of which we were not familiar. It was explained that he was being assessed in the surgery department and not in an advanced restorative department. The offer was made to fabricate a lower soft 2mm splint via our department to help with any grinding or clenching habit but explained that we do not get involved with any complicated occlusal hard splints or jaw repositioning splints. [The applicant] initially asked to have a lower soft splint fabricated and understood that if he wishes for the fee to be covered by his HSE, this would need to be approved [sic] the principal dental surgeon at his local HSE and we would need to communicate with them in writing first.”
• “[The applicant] then asked again about more complicated splints. It was again explained that he was being assessed in the surgery department and that any other type of complicated advanced splint would not be fabricated in this department. [The applicant] was not happy with this information and again stated that he did not understand that his appointment was in the Oral Surgery Department. We reminded him that his appointment letter clearly stated Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Dept [sic].”
• “[The applicant]’s referral letter dated October 2023 was directed to the Dental Hospital but not to any particular department. As such, the letter was allocated to the Oral Surgery Department to arrange assessment. [The referral] letter asked for [the applicant] to be seen regarding "persistent TMJ pain with an ongoing basis.”
• “On clinical examination there was no cervical lymphadenopathy. There was no tenderness over the TMJ region on palpation. There was mild tenderness of the right and left masseter muscles on palpation. The opening was good with no restriction. There was no click palpable on the right or left sides over the TMJ region on opening or closing. On intraoral examination [the applicant] was partially dentate. There was no molar support on the lower right side. An OPG radiograph was taken. This showed mild flattening of the right and left condylar heads. There was no sinister bony or dental pathology[.] ln summary [the applicant] has a long history of bilateral facial myalgia. The above was explained to him and he was given reassurance.”
• “[The applicant] was concerned that there may be in an issue with the meniscus of his joints. lt was explained that there were no clinical findings to suggest same and that an OPG radiograph and a CT scan would not show the meniscus. An MRI scan would need to be performed to examine the meniscus but explained that this was not indicated given he has no clinical signs to suggest any meniscal derangement. Conservative management was advised.”
• “[The applicant] left the clinic without any follow-up. As such there is no further review appointment made for him in this department.”
As noted above, the view of this Office is that a statement of reasons should be sufficiently clear to enable an applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body acted as it did. My view is that the excerpts above from the statement of reasons provided by the Hospital in this case constitute a sufficiently clear explanation as to why the applicant was “not accepted for treatment” or provided with a particular treatment or referral. In particular, the statement of reasons seems to me to set out quite clearly why the Hospital’s position in relation to the questions of why it did not (or could not) provide the applicant with a specific type of splint, why he was referred to a particular department within the hospital (and the limitations of the treatments that department could provide), the clinical findings of the department, the manner in which the appointment was concluded and the lack of follow-up from the Hospital. In relation to the final two points, as noted above the applicant disputes that he “left the clinic without any follow-up”. However, I have already set out that it is not open to this Office to make a finding on the accuracy or otherwise of this statement. The fact remains that the Hospital’s position is that the applicant left the appointment without making any further arrangements for follow-up treatment, and that on this basis no further treatment was arranged. It is not open to this Office to make any finding on the appropriateness or otherwise of the Hospital’s actions in this regard, but simply on whether the statement of reasons is sufficiently clear to enable the applicant to understand without due difficulty why it took those actions. I take the view that the information provided by the Hospital is sufficiently clear to enable such understanding, albeit that the applicant very clearly disagrees with the manner in which the Hospital acted. I therefore find that the statement of reasons issued by the Hospital in relation to points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 of the applicant’s FOI request is adequate for the purposes of section 10 of the FOI Act.
On the basis of the above analysis, I vary the decision of the Hospital. I find that the acts complained of at parts 5 and 8 of the applicant’s request are not “acts” of the Hospital in respect of which he is entitled to a statement of reasons under section 10 of the FOI Act. I therefore annul the decision of the Hospital to issue him with a statement of reasons addressing those parts of the request.
I find that the acts complained of at parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 are “acts” in respect of which the applicant is entitled to a statement of reasons under section 10. I find that the statement of reasons issued by the Hospital in respect of these acts is adequate for the purposes of section 10. I therefore affirm the decision of the Hospital in respect of these aspects of the statement of reasons it issued to the applicant.
I would again note that it seems very clear that the applicant is dissatisfied with the actions of the Hospital, and that he disputes both the sequence of events described by the Hospital and the appropriateness of the manner in which it addressed his dental issues. While I have every sympathy for the applicant, I must reiterate that such matters do not fall within the scope of a review of a decision of an FOI body under section 10 of the FOI Act. Section 10 is not concerned with the appropriateness, or otherwise, of administrative actions taken by public bodies, and nor does this Office have a role in examining such matters. Section 10 is concerned with providing the reasons for the act or decision and any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act or decision concerned. Moreover, section 10 is not an alternative appeal mechanism. The purpose of section 10 is to ensure that such reasons for an act as may be identified are conveyed to the applicant and, where reasons cannot be identified, it is not the purpose of section 10 to require the creation, after the event, of such reasons.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby vary the decision of the Hospital on the applicant’s FOI request. I annul its decision on parts 5 and 8 of the request, on the basis that the acts/decisions in respect of which the applicant sought a statement of reasons in these parts of his request do not constitute acts for the purposes of section 10, such that the applicant is not entitled to the statement sought. I affirm the Hospital’s decision on parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 of the applicant’s request, and find that the statement of reasons issued by the Hospital in relation to these parts of the request is adequate for the purposes of section 10 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.
Neill Dougan
Investigator