Decision
Mr. Z & Children's Health Ireland (CHI)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161858-J0W9L7
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161858-J0W9L7
Published on
Whether CHI was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, to minutes of its board meetings from 2019 to 2025 on the grounds that processing the request would cause substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work
20 November 2025
In a request dated 3 June 2025, the applicant sought access to records of minutes of all meetings of the Board of Children’s Health Ireland from 1 January 2019. On 22 July 2025, having received no decision on his request, the applicant sought an internal review. On 18 August 2025, CHI refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act due to the number of records requested. On 26 August 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of CHI’s decision.
On 18 September 2025, this Office’s Investigating Officer invited CHI to make submissions in support of its decision, to which no reply was received. The Investigating Officer wrote to CHI again on 10 October 2025 and CHI responded to this correspondence on 13 October 2025 with details about the number of records it had identified and why it considered the request voluminous. CHI sent a further email on the same day stating it could pull out the minutes of board meetings that it released previously from 2019 to 2025 and release those in the first instance to the applicant.
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, including the submissions made by CHI. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether CHI was justified in refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act on the basis that the request is voluminous and would cause substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, its work.
Section 15(1)(c) provides for the refusal of a request where the FOI body 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 (including disruption of work in a particular functional area).
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. Accordingly, before I consider whether CHI 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 its submissions to this Office, CHI said the applicant is seeking access to the minutes of the Board meetings from January 2019 to July 2025. It said, CHI Board meetings take place once a month so there are approximately 12 board meetings per year for the last 5.5 years (minimum 60 sets of minutes). CHI said it would take the Board Secretary a number of hours to retrieve all the minutes from 2019 and that it would take a minimum of 24 hours to schedule, review, redact, apply exemptions and draft a decision letter. It said it had contacted the applicant to see if he would reduce the scope, but he is of the view that the minutes would be easily retrieved. As noted above, in its submissions to this Office CHI said it could pull out the minutes of board meetings that it released previously from 2019 to 2025 and release those in the first instance to the applicant.
The terms of section 15(4) are clear. The FOI body must assist, or offer to assist, the requester in amending the request before it can be refused under section 15(1)(c). While I accept that CHI may have contacted the applicant to discuss reducing the number of records covered by his request, it did not provide any substantive submissions detailing this offer of assistance. It made no submissions on when or in what manner it engaged with the applicant to assist him in refining his request or evidence in the form of copies of correspondence with the applicant demonstrating meaningful engagement. Based on CHI’s correspondence with this Office, it is not clear that it engaged in any meaningful discussion with the applicant on what might be acceptable in the circumstances. For example, CHI did not make any submissions detailing what it might consider to be a reasonable refinement of the request so that it would not be considered voluminous and at risk of being refused under section 15(1)(c).
As noted above, during the course of this review CHI said that it would be able to release to the applicant minutes of board meetings that it released previously from 2019 to 2025. CHI did not say whether it had made this offer to the applicant.
Having regard to the circumstances and given the scarcity of details contained in CHI’s submissions to this Office, I am not satisfied that CHI meaningfully engaged with the applicant to offer assistance to him so that his request would not be refused under section 15(1)(c) of the Act. For example, it seems to me that CHI could have released those minutes that it had previously released with a view to reducing the remaining scope of the request. In the circumstances, I find CHI did not comply with the provisions of section 15(4) in this case. My finding that CHI did not comply with the provisions of section 15(4) is, of itself, sufficient for me to find that it was not justified in refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. Furthermore, CHI has not in my view adequately explained that the request was for such number of records as to justify its decision to refuse access under section 15(1)(c). In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the most appropriate course of action is to annul the decision of CHI and to direct it to undertake a fresh consideration of the request.
I understand that this may be frustrating for the applicant. However, I do not consider it appropriate to simply direct the release of the records which I have not seen, or in circumstances where CHI has indicated that it considers that processing the request, as it is currently worded, would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, its work. If CHI remains of the view that section 15(1)(c) of the Act applies, it must comply with the requirements of section 15(4) beforehand and make a meaningfully offer of assistance to him to amend his request so that processing it no longer causes an unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, work. As a starting point, I suggest CHI contact the applicant about releasing minutes of board meetings that it had released previously. This in itself would reduce the remaining scope of the applicant’s request.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul CHI’s decision. I find that CHI was not justified in refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act on the basis that it did not first comply with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act. I direct CHI to consider the request afresh.
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