Decision
Mr X and University of Galway
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-156349-J5N3N6
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-156349-J5N3N6
Published on
Whether the University was justified in withholding parts of correspondence concerning the Chinese translation of the University’s name
10 April 2026
The applicant’s FOI request of 9 October 2024 sought access to the following:
a) all correspondence from 1 September 2023 to 1 May 2024 between the University and the Chinese Embassy regarding the translation of the University’s name in Chinese, and
b) all correspondence over the same timeframe between the University and a named staff member (Mr A) in relation to the same matter.
On 21 November 2024, the University decided to part-grant the request. It released some records in full and others in part. It relied on sections 33(1)(d) (international relations), unspecified provisions of section 36 (commercially sensitive information) and section 37 (personal information) of the FOI Act in relation to the withheld details.
On 6 December 2024, the applicant applied for an internal review of the University’s decision. On 21 January 2025, the University granted access to further parts of the records and affirmed its refusal of access to the remainder under the provisions set out above.
On 7 February 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the University’s decision. He subsequently confirmed that he is not seeking access to any personal information.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act and I have decided to conclude it by way of a formal, binding decision. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the above exchanges, to correspondence between this Office, the University and the applicant, to the contents of the records at issue, and to the provisions of the FOI Act.
I understand that, further to its decisions on the request, the University provided the applicant with two sets of unnumbered records. These were described as “Records relating to Part A, redacted” (containing nine pages) and “Records relating to Part B redacted” (containing 27 pages). For ease of reference, I will refer to these as records 1-35, with record 1 being the first record of the “Records relating to Part A, redacted”, etc.
Of the remaining details, I informed the applicant that I intended to exclude the following on the basis that they consist of personal information:
• Page 1 (email dated 12 February 2024 at 14.35): last three words of subject line; the sixth and seventh words of the attachments line, the salutation and the redaction to the body of the email
• Page 2-3 (letter dated 9 February 2024): the first two lines of the address and the salutation
• Page 4–5 (email of 20 February 2024 at 17.25): three words in the second redaction to the body of the email and the signatory details on page 4
• Page 7 (email of 6 March 2024 at 5.19 pm): last three words of the first redaction to the body of the email
• Page 10 (letter dated 15 March 2024): first redaction
• Page 21 (concerning a meeting dated 12 October 2023): first two words of second redaction
• Page 29 (continuation of email dated 11 March 2024 at 11.07 am): redaction to point 2
• Page 31 (continuation of email of 6 March 2024 at 5.19 pm): last three words of the first redaction to the body of the email.
I also told the applicant that I was assuming he was not interested in obtaining the very small amount of information relating to University staff that does not qualify as personal information for the purposes of the FOI Act, as contained in pages 1, 3, 9, 10 and 35. The applicant confirmed that he was happy for the review to proceed accordingly.
Further to the above, my review is confined to the sole issue of whether the University was justified under sections 33(1)(d) and 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act in refusing to grant access to the remaining details, which are as follows:
• Page 1: the contents of the “To” line and the remainder of the subject and attachment lines
• Page 2-3: the last two lines of the address and the withheld sentence
• Pages 4-5 (which also includes an email of 21 February 2024 at 09.17): remainder
• Pages 6, 8, 22-25, 28, 30 and 32-34: all withheld details
• Pages 7, 9, 21, 29 and 31: the remainder.
The University’s decisions do not explain why it considers section 33(1)(d) to apply or specify which provision of section 36 is being relied on. I have drawn its attention to the requirements of sections 13(2)(d) and 21(5)(c) of the FOI Act, which specify the details that must be contained in original and internal review decisions which are refusing records, such as the exemption provisions being relied on and findings on relevant material issues. The University should ensure that its future decisions comply with these requirements of the Act. It should also have regard to the guidance for FOI bodies that is available on the website of the Department for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform's Central Policy Unit (CPU) at foi.gov.ie. In addition, the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform has published a Code of Practice (the Code) for public bodies pursuant to section 48 of the Act, which is also available on the CPU's website. The Code includes key details relevant to the processing of requests and the contents of decisions. Under section 48(3) of the FOI Act, public bodies must have regard to the Code in the performance of their functions under the Act.
Section 25(3) of the FOI Act requires the Information Commissioner to take all reasonable precautions in the performance of his functions to prevent the disclosure of information contained in an exempt record or that would cause the record to be exempt if it contained that information. In the particular circumstances of this case, this provision also has implications for the extent to which I can describe the University’s submission and give reasons for my decision.
The University expresses concern about the publication of sensitive information and says that the requester is a journalist from a newspaper with a large local circulation and a significant online presence. However, the identity of a requester is irrelevant. This is because release of records under FOI is generally understood to have the same effect as publishing them to the world at large, given that the Act places no constraints on the uses to which the information contained in those records may be put. Furthermore, section 13(4) of the Act provides that, subject to the Act, in deciding whether to grant or refuse a request, any reason that a requester gives for the request, or any belief or opinion of the head of the FOI body as to what are the reasons of the requester for the request, shall be disregarded.
I also wish to draw attention to section 22(12)(b) of the FOI Act which, as the University is aware, provides that a decision to refuse to grant an FOI request shall be presumed not to have been justified unless the FOI body satisfies the Information Commissioner that the decision was justified. This means that the onus is on the University of satisfying this Office that its decision to refuse the request was justified in this case. In the case of The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Information Commissioner & Ors [2020] IESC 57 (the eNet case), the Supreme Court found that the head of the FOI body dealing with the request must be conscious at all stages of the process that the overriding presumption is one of disclosure, with the result that any refusal to disclose must be fully reasoned and sufficiently coherent, fact specific, and logically connected to the document or record such that the justification is sufficient.
I note that, further to the University’s decision-making, a considerable amount of information relevant to the request is already effectively in the public domain. The publicly known details include the following:
• In October 2023, Mr A (in his work capacity) emailed the University’s Vice President International (VPI) about an item on the Academic Council’s (the Council’s) agenda concerning the translation issue. The VPI said that she was “obliged to make [the Council] aware of” certain issues. Although details of these issues were redacted, Mr A responded regarding “these concerns”, saying that certain updates (which he described) would have “little cost”. He also expressed a view that there would be “little impact” on “student recruitment and student diversity” (pages 34-35)
• On 12 February 2024, the University contacted a third party (details redacted) “to request your guidance with regard to the Chinese spelling of Galway” in its name. The University highlighted two possible Chinese versions of “Galway” and said that it wanted to ensure that the version it was using did not transgress any directives or cause offence (pages 1-3)
• On 20 February 2024, the University received an email from a third party (details redacted) essentially saying that it is a university’s right to change its name and asking to be advised of the University’s final determination on the matter (page 4-5)
• On 8 March 2024, in response to correspondence from Mr A, the VPI said that the Council had agreed that the University “would consult with the [redacted] on this matter and accept their response” (page 29)
• On 11 March 2024, Mr A thanked the VPI for informing him about “the reply from the [redacted] regarding the registration of the University and the concerns of the [redacted]”. He said that, “[h]owever, [the Council] is looking for their advice on translation.” The VPI replied that the matter now rested with Údarás na hOllscoile (pages 28-29).
The University relies on section 33(1)(d) of the FOI Act in relation to the majority of the redacted details. Bearing in mind the requirements of section 25(3), most of these redactions identify a party with which the University communicated on the translation matter. The small amount of the remaining such details concern the substance of these communications.
Section 33(1)(d) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant an FOI request if, in the opinion of the head of the body, access to the record(s) at issue could reasonably be expected to affect adversely the international relations of the State. It is a harm-based provision – in other words, where an FOI body seeks to rely on section 33(1)(d), the body must be able to demonstrate grounds for its opinion that the release of the record(s) at issue would affect the international relations of the State. In so demonstrating, the FOI body should identify the potential adverse effect on the international relations of the State and outline the basis on which it considers the release of the record could result in that adverse effect. It should be noted that the FOI body is not required to demonstrate that the adverse effect it has identified will definitely occur. It is sufficient for the body to show that it expects such an outcome, and that its expectations are reasonable in the sense that there are adequate grounds for them.
The Commissioner has previously accepted that a loss of trust or confidence in Ireland could be damaging to the international relations of the State. This Office also accepts that the expectation of the international community with regard to the information at issue is a relevant factor for consideration in determining whether access to the record could reasonably be expected to affect adversely the international relations of the State.
Although not relied on in this case, section 33(4) provides that where an FOI request relates to a record to which subsection (1) applies, or would, if the record existed, apply, and the head concerned is satisfied that the disclosure of the existence or non-existence of the record would prejudice a matter referred to in that subsection, he or she shall refuse to grant the request and shall not disclose to the requester concerned whether or not the record exists. Section 33(4) is relevant where, in the opinion of the FOI body, disclosing whether the record sought exists or does not exist would prejudice a matter referred to in subsection (1). The provision applies where it is the disclosure of the existence or non-existence of the record – as opposed to disclosure of the contents of the record – that would have that effect.
The applicant questions how communications about the University’s name in Chinese could have any implications for international relations.
Due to the requirements of section 25(3), I cannot disclose significant amounts of either my request for submissions or the University’s arguments as to why section 33(1)(d) applies. However, I confirm that I have had regard to the entirety of the University’s arguments.
In summary, I referred the University to particular facts and circumstances, in the light of which I said I could not see how certain types of withheld detail could be exempt under section 33(1)(d). I noted that such details had been disclosed to Mr A and asked whether he was restricted in sharing the details concerned. I also referred the University to a small amount of further details (the further details) and said that I could not see how their disclosure could impact on the State’s international relations, much less to the degree required for section 33(1)(d) to apply.
The University says that the request sought access to its correspondence and communications on a topic that it considers to be of a very sensitive and, essentially, of a very important nature. It effectively says that regardless of the matters that I brought to its attention, the publication or quotation of any of the withheld details to the world at large, particularly given the current very delicate geopolitical climate, could ultimately damage its relationships with certain other parties and, in turn, Ireland’s international relations. It outlines how it believes that this could happen. It says that Mr A is part of the Academic Council (the Council), and that it shared the relevant details with the Council on a confidential basis. It says that the Council, and all staff, are bound by confidentiality regarding all University business and correspondence.
I accept the University’s position that it disclosed various details to the Council, and in turn Mr A, on a restricted basis. However, this does not determine the matter.
I accept that the University places a high value on its various relationships, which it has spent considerable time and resources in developing. I accept that it does not wish to damage either those relationships or Ireland’s relationships with other countries.
Speaking generally, I accept that there are many subtle and often unspoken aspects to diplomatic communications, and that observing etiquette and proper protocol is especially important in certain countries and cultures. Also speaking generally, I can also accept that the disclosure to the world at large of certain types of communications could impact on Ireland’s international relations, particularly where the communications concern a sensitive matter.
I note here the University’s views on the sensitivity of the matters to which the withheld details relate. However, it must be borne in mind that the communications, overall, concern an issue of particular importance to the University and are cordial and quite general. In my view, the communications may be distinguished from correspondence between two sovereign countries about very contentious matters such as human rights issues, etc. Furthermore, and bearing in mind the requirements of section 25(3), the withheld details do not appear to me include any particular information that might be considered as sensitive or confidential. These issues are very relevant to considering whether disclosure of the withheld details could reasonably be expected to ultimately affect adversely the international relations of the State.
I have taken into account the above, the very precise nature of the request, the nature and specific content of the withheld details (including the further details), the various facts and circumstances to which I drew the University’s attention, and the information that the University has already placed in the public domain. While I cannot elaborate further due to section 25(3), I am not satisfied that disclosure of the withheld information could reasonably be expected to affect adversely the University’s relationship with other parties and, in turn, affect adversely Ireland’s international relations. I find that section 33(1)(d) does not apply.
Section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act provides that an FOI body shall refuse to grant an FOI request if the record concerned contains information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to the person to whom the information relates, or could prejudice the competitive position of the person in the conduct of his or her profession or business or otherwise in his or her occupation. The essence of the test in section 36(1)(b) is not the nature of the information but the nature of the harm which might be occasioned by its release.
The harm test in the first part of section 36(1)(b) is that disclosure "could reasonably be expected to result in material loss or gain". This Office takes the view that the test to be applied is not concerned with the question of probabilities or possibilities but with whether the decision maker's expectation is reasonable. The harm test in the second part of section 36(1)(b) is that disclosure of the information "could prejudice the competitive position" of the person in the conduct of their business or profession. The standard of proof to be met here is considerably lower than the "could reasonably be expected" test in the first part of this exemption. However, this Office takes the view that, in invoking "prejudice", the damage which could occur must be specified with a reasonable degree of clarity.
The applicant says that the OIC has decided in other cases that information was not commercially sensitive, or that it had lost such sensitivity due to the passage of time or that it was releasable in the public interest. He says that matters that may be commercially sensitive for a private business may not be commercially sensitive for a university, which he says is heavily subsidised by public money. He says that while the University spent €500,000 on its name change/re-brand, it refused to change its Chinese name and that it is in the public interest to release records that may explain this.
I told the University that I was taking its decisions as relying on section 36(1)(b) in relation to the first redaction to page 21 and the sole redaction to record 34. The University has not taken issue with my understanding.
It is evident from the other details released from page 21, which is dated 12 October 2023, that the University had concerns over the possible impact on student recruitment that may arise from changing the current Chinese translation. Mindful of section 25(3), the relevant redaction estimates the impact on fee income arising from a specific reduction in that market and, essentially, discloses the amount of fee income generated by this cohort of international students. The redaction to page 34 concerns issues that the VPI said she was obliged to bring to the Academic Council’s attention.
I told the University that I could not see how the details could be of use to its competitors. I noted the age of the relevant redaction to page 21 and said that it seemed reasonably high level. While noting that the University publishes the fees it charges all international students for various courses, I said that I could not see how the relevant total fee income could be analysed in any way by competitors. I asked for details of any information published by the University that could enable such analysis (particularly the numbers of Chinese students taking specific courses). I said also that I was unable to find the total numbers of the University’s Chinese students online but that, even if such information is published, I could not see how this would give competitors any insight into the University’s strategies, etc.
I noted that the redaction to page 34 was extremely high-level and general. I referred the University to another factor that I cannot disclose here due to section 25(3)).
The University says that the relevant redaction to page 21 relates directly to its recruitment pipeline. It says that the release of commercially sensitive information about a substantial international cohort of its students would place it at a commercial and economic disadvantage. It says that the international student market is very competitive, with international students generally applying to multiple universities. It says that such students take account of various factors including speed of decision-making, scholarship availability, nature and timing of follow-up, marketing communications, and accommodation offers in deciding which college offer to accept. It emphasises the reliance it places on international students and their financial contributions.
The University says that the withheld details would provide strategic intelligence to its competitors and commercial bodies within the sector. It says that, although dating from 2023, competitors could interpret the figures to ascertain the University’s relative strengths and weaknesses, which they could then benchmark against their own plans and strategies and enable them to refine their practices and potentially divert market share. It says also that the details could be used to work out its highly commercially sensitive scholarship and discounting strategies or otherwise used by competitors to evaluate pricing strategies.
The University says that while it publishes its fees, it does not publish the numbers of students from any overseas country. It says that the Higher Education Authority (the HEA) publishes global data concerning the percentage of students attending Irish universities. It provides a link to such data.
The University expresses particular concern over the potential for racist abuse and harassment arising from the disclosure of information relating to fees generated by a specific cohort of students, or information that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as such. It says that online publications are monitored by far-right groups who could potentially single out Chinese students. It says that it has experience of another cohort of international students being targeted and it endeavours to protect its students from attacks or fears of attack. It says also that the possibility of negative publicity about such attacks could affect its recruitment of international students, thereby giving a competitive advantage to competitors within and outside of Ireland. It says that it is Government policy to encourage foreign students.
The University says that the details could be used by recruitment partners in ways that could compromise contractual negotiations. It says that it is currently running a procurement process for overseas agents and will shortly go to tender for overseas representatives and digital marketing services. It says that the release of this type of information could weaken its own bargaining position and “strengthen theirs” (which I take to be a reference to the possible tenderers). It says that the details “would also give an advantage to suppliers in this sector in any procurement process, for example, in procuring services for digital marketing campaigns, agent representatives, or student ambassador platforms which are all focused on increasing the conversion rate between offer of a place to international students and the acceptance of the place in [the University] … by international students and providing any such intelligence to the Requester which could then be published and then viewed, analysed, and then used by the University’ competitors would strengthen [its] competitors’ negotiating position and weaken the [University’s] negotiating position in relation to international student recruitment.”
I cannot describe the University’s submission in relation to the details redacted from record 34 due to the requirements of section 25(3). Essentially, however, it appears to justify the relevant comments in the context of a possible name change, rather than how they qualify for exemption under section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
It is possible for section 36(1)(b) to apply to information relating to a university or public body, regardless of whether public monies are at issue.
I accept the importance to the University of the financial contributions made by international students. I accept that the University competes with Irish and foreign universities in seeking to attract such students and that this market is very competitive. I also accept that information concerning the University’s strategies could be of interest to its competitors. For instance, if a competitor determined that the University was particularly skilled in attracting students of a particular discipline, any insight that the competitor may get into the University's strategies could enable them to alter their own approaches to student recruitment, to the University’s detriment.
However, while the University makes various assertions of harm, it has not explained how such outcomes could occur by reference to the particular nature of the information at issue. As noted, the information concerns the estimated impact on fee income arising from a specific reduction in the Chinese student market and, essentially, discloses how much fee income is generated by this cohort of the University’s international students. However, no further details are given, such as how the reduction was arrived at, or the total numbers of Chinese students attending the University, or the numbers of such students taking specific courses, etc. Neither has the University referred me to any such details that may be in the public domain. While it referred me to certain details on the HEA website, I note that the relevant publication simply refers to the percentage of Chinese students in Ireland and the overall number of international students attending the University. While the University publishes the fees it charges to international students for various types of courses, I do not see how the details at issue could give competitors any insights into the University’s strategies without further information that could enable analysis of the total fee income generated by Chinese students.
Furthermore, of themselves, the redacted details disclose nothing about the University’s methods for persuading students to accept offers, or about its scholarship, discounting, pricing or any other strategies. It is not apparent to me, nor has the University explained, how the details could enable insight into such matters, or otherwise enable its competitors to take particular steps prejudicial to the University’s competitive position in the international student market. Neither do I see how disclosure of these details could impact on the consideration given by potential students to accepting offers from the University.
The University maintains that it could suffer reputational damage if disclosure of the details were to result in racist attacks on students, which would in turn affect its recruitment of international students generally. However, it is not apparent to me, nor has it been explained, how disclosure of the details on page 21 could place the University’s Chinese students in any greater danger of racist attack than they may be in at present. I see no basis on which to accept that disclosure could ultimately cause the University reputational damage.
The University also claims that the details could be used by other parties to compromise various contractual negotiations relating to international student recruitment. I presume that it contends that such outcomes would prejudice its competitive position in the international student market. However, the University describes these negotiations in very high-level terms. Furthermore, while it asserts that disclosure of the relevant details could weaken its negotiating position in these negotiations, it does not explain how such harm could result from disclosure of the particular details at issue. Neither is this apparent to me from my consideration of the details concerned.
Further to the above, I am not satisfied that disclosure of the relevant redaction to page 21 could prejudice the University’s competitive position in the international student market. I find that section 36(1)(b) does not apply.
Having regard the nature and specific content of the details withheld from page 34, the University’s arguments in relation to those details, the particular factor to which I drew the University’s attention and the information that the University has already placed in the public domain, I do not accept that disclosure could prejudice the University’s competitive position in the international student market. I find that section 36(1)(b) does not apply.
It is also worth noting that, when requesting its submissions, I invited the University to make arguments regarding any other FOI exemption that it considered relevant. It did not seek to rely on any further exemptions or explain why it considered them to apply.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the University’s decision on the withheld details. I find that the details are not exempt under the FOI Act and I direct the University to grant access to them.
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.
Anne Lyons
Investigator