Cinneadh
Dr X & South East Technological University
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-162856-N5R5Q1 & OIC-162857-T1H2Z1
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-162856-N5R5Q1 & OIC-162857-T1H2Z1
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether SETU was justified in its decisions, under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, to refuse access to records on the basis that granting the requests would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work
2 April 2026
There are two cases involved in this review. As the cases have a similar timeline and content, involve the same applicant and FOI body, and the FOI body used the same exemptions to refuse both requests, I have decided to conclude both reviews with one composite decision. In my review, I will make it clear which case I am referring to and when.
On 21 July 2025, the applicant made two FOI requests to SETU. The first request (SETU reference: FOI-SETU-25-020, OIC case reference: OIC-162856-N5R5Q1) was in relation to the recruitment process for the three Senior Vice President (SVP) roles advertised and conducted between 2023 and 2025, covering the planning and design of these roles through to the conduct and outcome of the recruitment processes. The second request (SETU reference: FOI-SETU-25-019, OIC case reference: OIC-162857-T1H2Z1) was in relation to the engagement of a named third-party consultant firm by SETU, including records of procurement and contractual engagements, internal and external correspondence, meetings and decision-making records, and oversight and governance.
On 18 and 25 August 2025, SETU decided to refuse both requests respectively under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. In its decisions, it stated that, in accordance with section 15(4), it offered the applicant assistance to narrow the scope of his requests in order to avoid refusal under section 15(1)(c), but the requests were not narrowed before its original decisions. For request referenced FOI-SETU-25-019, SETU stated that on 7 August 2025, the applicant said that he did not intend to refine his request at that time. SETU stated that section 15(1)(c) was the basis for both of its refusals because the requests were not feasible to process in their current form without significant disruption to its day-to-day operations.
On 27 August 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of both SETU decisions. In his internal review requests, the applicant stated, amongst other points, that SETU provided inadequate assistance to narrow the scope of his requests, that it should have applied fees for processing his requests under section 27 of the FOI Act, and that section 15(1)(c) had been applied incorrectly.
On 17 and 18 September 2025, SETU issued its internal review decisions to affirm its original decisions on both requests. SETU provided tables showing a breakdown of the estimated hours for each relevant area to process the requests (totalling over 71 hours for FOI-SETU-25-020 and over 53 hours for FOI-SETU-25-019), along with additional rationale to explain why processing the request, without refinement, would require a substantial and unreasonable allocation of resources across multiple departments of the University.
On 23 September 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of SETU’s decisions on both requests. In his applications, the applicant stated that SETU’s time estimates were inflated, that there was a conflict of interest in terms of who carried out the internal reviews of SETU’s decisions, and that SETU should have processed his requests by applying fees as per section 27 of the FOI Act as they had referred to the possibility of charging search and retrieval fees before its decisions.
I have now completed my reviews in both matters in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my reviews, I have had regard to the submissions made by SETU and the applicant. I have decided to conclude these reviews by way of a single formal, binding decision covering both matters.
In correspondence to the applicant in both cases, before it made its decisions to refuse the requests under section 15(1)(c), SETU also referred to the possibility of charging search and retrieval fees under section 27 of the FOI Act, if the requests were narrowed in scope. As the requests were not narrowed, SETU did not subsequently take any formal decision to impose a fee in either of the matters under review. In his application and submissions to our Office, the applicant insisted that SETU should have charged search and retrieval fees to process his requests and that he was willing to pay the fees. However, in circumstances where SETU did not take a formal decision to impose a fee under section 27 of the Act in either matter, and merely alluded to the possibility of such a fee, were the applicant to narrow the scope of the respective requests; something which did not in fact take place in either matter. I am satisfied that the provisions of section 27 fall outside the scope of my review.
Therefore, this review is solely concerned with whether SETU was justified in its decisions, under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, to refuse access to records on the basis that granting the requests would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work.
At the outset of the review there are a number of preliminary points I wish to make.
In his applications to our Office, the applicant raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest with the SETU staff involved in the internal review process. He also questioned why senior-level staff were involved in the decision-making process on his requests. It is important to note that the role of this Office is not to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, nor to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies, or by any other parties. Our role is confined to reviewing the decision taken by the FOI body on the applicant’s request for records. We generally do not comment on the record-keeping practices of FOI bodies, nor on which of its staff the FOI body believes are best fit to process an FOI request.
Also, the applicant referred to public interest arguments in favour of the release of records in his request. The applicant said that the records in both cases relate to the significant expenditure of public funds. It is important to note that the question of whether or not the granting of a request is in the public interest is not a valid consideration in determining whether a request falls to be refused under section 15(1)(c). The section is an express acknowledgement of the fact that there are limits to the resources a public body must expend on processing requests. The FOI Act seeks to strike a balance between ensuring access to records to the greatest extent possible and managing the administrative burden on FOI bodies in dealing with requests that require a significant allocation of time and resources.
Furthermore, it should be noted that section 13(4) of the FOI Act provides that, subject to the legislation, in deciding whether to grant or refuse an FOI request, any reason that the requester gives for the request and any belief or opinion of the FOI body as to the reasons for the request shall be disregarded. Thus, while certain provisions of the FOI Act implicitly render the motive of the requester relevant, as a general rule, the actual or perceived reasons for a request must be disregarded in deciding whether to grant or refuse a request under the FOI Act.
Section 15(1)(c) and Section 15(4)
Section 15(1)(c) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant a request where it considers that granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, work of the body. It should be noted that a refusal may be made on the basis of a disruption of the work of a particular functional area, and not necessarily on the basis of disruption of work of the body as a whole.
However, section 15(4) provides that a request cannot be refused under section 15(1)(c) unless the body has first assisted, or offered to assist, the requester in amending the request so that it no longer falls to be refused under that section. As such, before I consider whether SETU was justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(c), I must first consider whether it complied with the provisions of section 15(4) before doing so.
The FOI Act is silent on the precise nature or level of the assistance to be offered under section 15(4). This Office takes the view that before a body can refuse a request under section 15(1)(c), the body must first have provided reasonable assistance to the requester in amending the request, or have offered to provide assistance in cases where the requester is not willing to amend the original request, in order to comply with the requirements of section 15(4). On the question of what constitutes reasonable assistance, this Office considers that the level or nature of the assistance to be provided can vary significantly from case to case and will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It will often also depend on the willingness of the parties to engage in meaningful discussion on what might be acceptable in the circumstances.
In the course of the review by this Office, the Investigating Officer sought submissions from SETU with respect to why it considers that section 15(1)(c) applies in both matters. A summarised version of these submissions was provided to the applicant following which the applicant made further submissions to this Office. While I do not propose to repeat the submissions from both parties in full here, I confirm that I have had regard to them for the purposes of this review.
Section 15(4)
By way of background, in its submissions to this Office in both matters, SETU stated that the two requests under review formed part of a sustained and overlapping series of FOI requests and Subject Access Requests (SARs) from the applicant concerning the same subject matter over a short period of time. More particularly, it stated that in addition to the two FOI requests which form the basis of the current review, the applicant submitted a further two FOI requests and three SARs in August 2025, all of which relate to the same underlying issue. It stated that while each FOI request was considered on its own merits, it nonetheless considered it relevant to note the significant resource implications and practical challenges it encountered while responding to the multitude of requests from the applicant.
SETU also stated that on 11 June 2025 it proposed a Microsoft Teams meeting with the applicant to help clarify the issues and provide guidance. It further stated that on 8 August 2025 a senior Vice-President contacted the applicant to propose a meeting or a phone call to discuss these interconnected requests. However, it stated that the applicant declined both requests and indicated his preference for communication to be in written format.
In addition to these general comments, SETU also provided this Office with specific submissions in relation to its handling of both requests under review which I will now set out.
In its submissions to our Office, SETU stated that with respect to this first request, prior to issuing its original decision under section 15(1)(c), it put the applicant on notice that his request, in its original format, appeared to be voluminous and so it asked him to consider narrowing the scope and offered assistance if required.
Both SETU and the applicant provided this Office with copies of email correspondence between them in the period from receiving the original request, the original decision, up to the internal review decision. I can confirm I have had sight of this correspondence.
SETU also provided this Office with a chronological summary of the assistance it provided the applicant. It stated that on 11 August 2025 it advised the applicant it considered that his request, as submitted, was voluminous. It further stated that it provided the applicant with detailed information, including the departments involved, the categories of records, and the estimated hours required for searches and redaction to assist him in understanding the scope of the work and to enable him to meaningfully narrow the request.
SETU further stated that, in an email to the applicant on 13 August 2025, it provided the applicant with a breakdown of the work with details of hours for estimated efficient search and retrieval by each relevant department. It said that it provided a suggested scope reduction as follows: “Search and retrieval hours would be reduced if the request was based solely on the specific recruitment process associated with three positions as opposed to all records in relation to the planning and design of these roles.”
On 14 August 2025, the applicant provided SETU with a table he had generated with columns to be filled out by SETU to specify estimated hours, estimated cost, type of work, and the digital location/platform involved in locating the records from his request. The applicant said that if SETU completed the table, this would provide him with the clarity to adjust the scope of his request.
The Investigating Officer asked SETU why it did not fill out the table to facilitate the refinement of the request. SETU responded by saying that it was of the view that it had already met the obligations under section 15(4) at this point by offering the applicant assistance to narrow his request, and by providing information regarding the relevant functional areas, the categories of records involved, and the estimated time required to search for, retrieve, review, and redact the records sought.
Further, in an email dated 18 August 2025, SETU said that it proposed a phone call for the applicant to have with the decision maker to discuss the possible narrowing of the scope of the request. By response of the same date the applicant informed SETU that he could not narrow the scope of his request beyond what had already been submitted.
The Investigating Officer provided the applicant with a summary of SETU’s submissions and provided him with the opportunity to make further submissions of his own, which he duly did.
In relation to section 15(4), the applicant said that SETU did not provide the information required to enable meaningful refinement of his request. The applicant said he required specific information, such as itemised record counts, identification of which elements were voluminous, and an explanation of search terms, locations, platforms, or duplication. The applicant said that, without this information and SETU filling out the table he provided, his request was impossible to refine.
Having considered SETU’s correspondence with the applicant as outlined above, I am satisfied that SETU offered to assist the applicant in narrowing the scope of this request to avoid its refusal under section 15(1)(c). The correspondence shows that SETU outlined which departments would be involved in the search for records and how long it would take for each to search. At internal review, SETU provided additional rationale for each department’s searches, including a breakdown of hours associated with extracting the relevant information. I accept that SETU providing this information was part of its attempt to assist the applicant with narrowing his request as he could have perhaps used this information provided by the SETU to prioritise parts of his request and come to a reasonable understanding with what was feasible for SETU to process.
I also acknowledge from the correspondence prior to its decision that SETU made a specific suggestion to reasonably narrow the request in its email on 13 August 2025. The applicant did not seem to take up this suggestion.
I do not accept that SETU was obligated to fill out the table generated by the applicant to narrow the request. I find that SETU had met its obligation under section 15(4) of the FOI Act to offer assistance to the applicant to narrow the request. If SETU had filled out the table provided by the applicant, it appears to me that such information would most likely reflect what it had already provided to the applicant in its correspondence.
Therefore, I am satisfied that SETU complied with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act in the matter numbered FOI-SETU-25-020, OIC-162856-N5R5Q1.
In a similar manner, before I consider whether SETU was also justified in refusing the above request (FOI-SETU-25-019, OIC-162857-T1H2Z1) under section 15(1)(c), I must first consider whether it complied with the provisions of section 15(4).
In its submissions to our Office, SETU said that before its original decision on this request, on 7 August 2025, it responded to an email from the applicant seeking clarification on the possible refinement of the request by providing a breakdown of the work required to process the request and the estimated hours by department. SETU said that this totalled 53 hours and 30 minutes. SETU stated that, in response to this on the same day, the applicant said that he did not intend to refine the request at that time.
While section 15(4) requires the FOI body to assist or offer to assist the requester in narrowing the scope of their request, this also involves meaningful engagement from the applicant to make the request more reasonable/manageable for the FOI body to process. In this circumstance, as the requester informed SETU that he was not willing or able to narrow the scope of his request at that time, I find that SETU was justified to proceed on this basis.
Therefore, I am satisfied that SETU complied with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act in the matter numbered FOI-SETU-25-019, OIC-162857-T1H2Z1.
In light of my respective findings under section 15(4) I will now proceed to consider whether SETU was justified in refusing the requests under section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 15(1)(c)
The Investigating Officer asked SETU to expand on its reasoning as to why processing this request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work.
In its submissions, SETU said that it undertook a structured and standardised exercise to estimate the work required to process the request. It said that the internal reviewer contacted each relevant manager and asked them to re-examine the request, confirm or amend their original estimates, and explain the methodology used to calculate the time required for search, retrieval, review, redaction, and preparation of a schedule of records. It said that all managers completed the SETU FOI Fees Calculation Template, ensuring consistency and an evidence-based approach. SETU attached a copy of the FOI Fees Calculation Template it used to its submissions for reference.
SETU stated that the estimates were informed by managers’ direct knowledge of their record-holding systems and took account of the number and type of records likely to fall within scope, the locations to be searched (including email accounts, shared drives, Microsoft Teams folders, and structured filing systems), and reasonable average review times per record. SETU said that, on this basis, managers identified that several hundred records would require examination across multiple functional areas, with the resulting estimates totalling approximately 71.45 hours.
SETU said that given the scale of work required, the number of staff involved, and the level of coordination and oversight necessary to ensure compliance, processing the request in full would significantly divert staff from core operational duties. On this basis, SETU determined that granting the request, without refinement, would constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with the effective functioning of the University within the meaning of Section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act.
The Investigating Officer provided the applicant with a summary of SETU’s submissions and provided him with the opportunity to make further submissions of his own, which he duly did. The applicant stated that SETU’s estimates were based largely on the involvement of senior executives and the third-party consultant firm rather than on appropriate administrative staff or efficient system-level searches. The applicant also said that SETU’s claim that the request would require extensive cross-departmental coordination is not appropriate as the records he is seeking should be centrally held and are therefore easily accessed.
My Analysis
As noted above, the FOI Act seeks to strike a balance between ensuring access to records and managing the administrative burden on FOI bodies in dealing with requests that require a significant allocation of time and resources. It should be noted that a refusal may be made on the basis of a disruption of the work of a particular functional area, and not necessarily the disruption of work of the body as a whole.
In the circumstances, having taken into consideration the submissions made by SETU and the applicant, I accept that the time and resources that would be required to retrieve and examine the relevant records would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, and disruption of, SETU’s work.
While the applicant has argued that the records should be centrally held and are therefore easily accessible, his original request refers to what appears to be a lengthy and complex recruitment/promotion process to a senior role involving a number of departments within SETU. The request, in its original form, is multi-faceted and SETU has demonstrated that it would cause significant disruption to the relevant areas’ work to process the request in full without refinement. In my view, SETU’s argument that the applicant’s request is very wide-reaching is reasonable given the nature of his request.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that SETU was justified in refusing access to records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request numbered FOI-SETU-25-020, OIC-162856-N5R5Q1 on the basis of section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
I also note that in his submissions to this Office, the applicant stated that SETU suggested that a request for records related to just the operational recruitment process records for the three SVP roles would be less burdensome. The applicant said that SETU did not process this narrower request. However, based on the correspondence and submissions before me, the applicant did not appear to explicitly agree to this suggested narrowing of his request before SETU’s decision to refuse the request under section 15(1)(c). This submission from the applicant seems to show that he would be agreeable to this suggested refinement to his request. It is open to the applicant to make a revised, fresh request to SETU on this narrowed basis if he wishes to do so.
With regard to this request, in its submissions, SETU stated that managers across the relevant functional areas undertook substantial preliminary work to estimate the time required to identify, locate, retrieve, review, and extract records falling within the scope of the request. It said that this work resulted in itemised time estimates by area, with a breakdown of the specific activities involved in processing the request which it said was provided to the applicant. SETU stated that this was to provide the applicant with a basis to refine the scope of his request by, for example, prioritising particular departments, record categories, or timeframes.
SETU said that the records potentially falling within the scope of this request include large volumes of emails over a multi-year period, electronic and hard copy files, records held across multiple email accounts and devices, and records containing mixed content, requiring examination to determine relevance and, where applicable, redaction.
At internal review stage, SETU said that the revised estimates provided by the relevant managers totalled 53 hours 20 minutes, excluding any time required for decision-making, consultation, or redaction beyond initial review. SETU stated that this work would require the sustained involvement of multiple senior managers across several departments, each diverting significant time from their core operational responsibilities.
SETU stated that, while the request refers to a single consultant firm, it spans a five-year period during which that consultant firm was engaged by the University across multiple projects and functional areas. SETU said that the aggregate level of work required to identify, locate, retrieve, and examine the records across the relevant areas over the five-year period would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with its work.
Once again, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with a summary of SETU’s submissions and provided him with the opportunity to make further submissions of his own, which he duly did. The applicant said that SETU did not demonstrate that any preliminary sampling or verification was carried out by administrative staff at the appropriate level, nor did it explain why such senior personnel were involved. The applicant said that SETU’s claims in its submissions that multi-year trawls through dispersed email accounts were unsubstantiated. The applicant further said that any consultancy engagement over a multi-year period should be centrally documented through procurement files, contracts, purchase orders, invoices, award notices, conflict-of-interest declarations, evaluation material, and governance papers.
My Analysis
In my view, SETU has satisfactorily outlined why granting the applicant’s second request would involve a substantial interference with its work. While the applicant has argued that SETU has overstated the burden of processing this request, I am satisfied that SETU has demonstrated that the applicant’s request, without refinement, is voluminous and processing it would incur significant disruption to several areas of SETU’s day-to-day work.
The applicant has disputed that his request spans a multiyear period and, as SETU said, covers multiple projects and functional areas. However, the applicant’s original request referred to records dating from 1 January 2020 to the date of the request relating to several different types of records held in different areas. Therefore, given the complex and lengthy nature of the applicant’s request, I find that SETU has sufficiently demonstrated why processing the request, without refinement, would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, its work.
In the circumstances, having taken into consideration the submissions before this Office, I accept that the time and resources that would be required to retrieve and examine all the relevant records would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, and disruption of, the work of the relevant areas of SETU.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that SETU was justified in refusing access to records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request numbered FOI-SETU-25-019, OIC-162857-T1H2Z1 on the basis of section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
It remains open to the applicant to submit a refined request to SETU. If he wishes to do so, I would suggest that both parties enter into meaningful discussions as to how such a refined request might be framed with a view to meeting the aims of the applicant to the maximum extent possible whilst simultaneously ensuing that SETU has the capacity to process the request.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm SETU’s decisions to refuse these requests under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. I find that processing the requests would, without refinement, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, the work of SETU.
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.
Mary Connery
Investigator