Decision
Mr Z and Health and Safety Authority
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-200002
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-200002
Published on
Whether the HSA was justified in requiring the applicant to pay a fee for an internal review of its original decision on his FOI request, in accordance with section 27(13)(a)(i) of the FOI Act
20 January 2026
In a request dated 16 November 2025, the applicant sought access to:
The following non-personal records for the period 1 January 2025 to 16 November 2025:
• Any notifications, reports, or submissions made to the HSA regarding safety hazards or dangerous occurrences (as defined in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005) specifically relating to damage to the exterior structures at [a specified retail location (the Retailer)], including but not limited to exterior signage.
• Any HSA inspection records, including inspection reports, improvement notices, prohibition notices, or correspondence with [the Retailer] concerning exterior damage at this location.
• Any records of actions taken by the HSA in response to incidents reported at this site, including follow-up communications or assessments relating to the exterior damage.
In a decision dated 9 December 2025, the HSA refused the applicant’s request under section 35(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that the records concerned contain information given to an FOI bodys in confidence and on the understanding that it would be treated by it as confidential. The HSA noted that the applicant may be aware of some details and circumstances of the records concerned but found that the provision applied as release under FOI is considered a release to the world at large. In its decision letter, the HSA informed the applicant of his right of appeal and stated that a fee of €30 (or €10 reduced fee) must accompany his appeal in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Fees) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations).
On 10 December 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of the HSA’s decision and asked that the internal review fee be waived. He argued that the refusal was a blanket refusal that did not address the different categories of records sought, did not consider partial release, and applied section 35 to records that are not confidential submissions from complainants. He said that, given these issues, and the public interest in transparency around workplace and public safety, he believed that it would be unreasonable to require a fee in this case. On 11 December 2025, the HSA refused to waive the fee for internal review.
On 14 December 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review the HSA’s decision. He identified himself as the source of a complaint to the HSA regarding the Retailer. He said the HSA stated that it located only one complaint relevant to this matter and that, if it is his own complaint, then section 35(1)(a) should not apply to refuse access to his own complaint under an exemption designed to protect the identity of third-party sources. He argued that the HSA’s failure to confirm if he was the source of the complaint to which he sought access to constitutes a procedural defect. He said if the HSA maintains that the complaint located is not his own, then the searches conducted were inadequate for the purposes of section 15(1)(a) in that the HSA has not demonstrated that it took all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of records falling within the scope of his request.
The applicant said the Retailer’s compliance team confirmed with him in separate correspondence (copies of which he provided this Office), that it had reported the hazard to the HSA itself. He said this contradicts the HSA’s assertion that records exist in relation to one complaint only and that there were no other records relating to the complaint falling within the scope of his request.
In his application to this Office, the applicant outlined what he considered other procedural failings on the part of the HSA including the procedural invalidity of the internal review. He argued the internal review was invalid and unlawful because it was conducted by the same officer who made the original refusal rather than a more senior member of HSA staff. He said the HSA unlawfully demanded the €30 fee, despite the records likely containing his personal information, which would exempt them from fees under Regulations. He said no advance notice of any fee was provided, despite his explicit request in the original application to be informed in advance of any applicable fees.
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, to the submissions received from the applicant and the HSA. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
While the applicant sought an internal review of the HSA’s decision to refuse his request under section 35(1)(a) of the Act, the HSA did not process his request for internal review as the applicant did not pay the relevant fee. As no internal review has been carried out to date, I have no jurisdiction at this time to review the HSA’s substantive decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 35(1)(a). Should the applicant choose to pay the fee for an internal review, it will be open to him to make a new application to this Office for a review of the HSA’s substantive decision if he is not satisfied with the outcome of any such internal review.
Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether the HSA was justified in charging the applicant a fee to carry out an internal review of the original decision it made on his request.
It is important to note 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.
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 27(13)(a)(i) of the FOI Act provides that a fee of such amount (if any) as may be prescribed shall (my emphasis) be charged by the FOI body and paid by the applicant to the body in respect of an application for internal review under section 21. These application fees are sometimes referred to as ‘up-front’ fees. The prescribed fee is set out in the Freedom of Information Act (Fees)(No.2) Regulations 2014 [S.I. No. 531 of 2014] (the Regulations). Under Regulation 4, a fee of €30 is prescribed for an application for internal review, or €10 in the case of a medical card holder or a dependant of a medical card holder.
Under the Regulations, a fee is not payable in respect of an application for internal review where:
a) the record(s) contain only personal information relating to the applicant,
b) the application is in relation to a decision under section 9 or 10 or,
c) the application is in relation to a decision to charge a fee or deposit, or a fee or deposit of a particular amount, under section 27.
In its submissions to this Office, the HSA said it provided details of the applicant’s right of appeal and instructions for how to make his appeal including the required fee. It said it had not considered the internal review to be valid as no fee was paid by the requester in this case but that it would proceed with an internal review upon receipt of the required fee. It said the records sought are not personal records but relate to responses received from a private business about a piece of equipment. It said the original complaint made by the requester is included in the records.
The applicant specified in his original request to the HSA that he sought access to non-personal information. Even if it is the case that the applicant is the source of a complaint to the HSA, and notwithstanding the HSA’s acknowledgement that his complaint is included in the records, it is clear the request is not for records that contain only personal information relating to the applicant. As noted above, the applicant’s request included access to correspondence with the retailer concerning damage to external structures at the retail location. I am satisfied that the records sought and those described by HSA do not constitute solely personal information of the applicant.
The Regulations do not contain any other exceptions to the prescribed fee for an application for internal review. It is clear, therefore, that the FOI Act requires applicants to pay a fee to the FOI body when requesting an internal review of its original decision where their FOI request concerns access to non-personal information. It is also clear that the applicant’s FOI request seeks access to records containing non-personal information and is not concerned solely with records that contain only personal information relating to him. While the applicant has argued that the fee for internal review should be waived in the public interest, there is no such provision in the Act or the Regulations to waive the fee for internal review.
The language of the Act is clear that the charging of an upfront fee for an internal review is mandatory and must be paid prior to an FOI body accepting a request for an internal review, irrespective of the applicant’s views about the appropriateness of the fees in his case. Where the appropriate fee is not paid, the body shall refuse to accept the application, and it is deemed, for the purposes of the FOI Act, not to have been made. While there are specific circumstances, as outlined above where no fee applies, such as requests for personal information, it is clear that those circumstances do not apply in this case. Having considered the matter carefully, I am satisfied that the HSA was justified in requiring the applicant to pay a fee for an internal review of its original decision.
If the applicant wishes to proceed with his request for and internal review, he must pay the relevant fee to the HSA. If he does proceed and is unhappy with the HSA’s internal review decision, his normal rights of appeal to this Office will apply.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the HSA’s decision to levy the fee prescribed in the Regulations, and as provided for under section 27(13)(a)(i) of the FOI Act, in respect of the applicant’s request for internal review.
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