Decision
Mrs X & Health Service Executive (HSE)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159959-J9G2V9
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159959-J9G2V9
Published on
Whether the HSE was justified in refusing the applicant’s request for her son’s medical records under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act on the ground that granting the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work
16 October 2025
In a request dated 15 April 2025, the applicant sought access to all records, notes, assessments, correspondence, and reports pertaining to her son’s care. The applicant provided a non-exhaustive list of the types of records she was looking for from different services in the HSE, including records held relating to Primary Care, Speech and Language Therapy, Physiotherapy, Early Intervention and various other services.
On 9 May 2025, the HSE wrote to the applicant and put her on notice that the request, in its present form, may fall to be refused under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act due to its voluminous nature. It stated that the processing of the request may cause a substantial and unreasonable level of interference with its work. The HSE suggested that, in order to avoid her request being refused under section 15(1)(c), the applicant may wish to narrow the scope of her request to a shorter time period or to records from a specific service(s). On 13 May 2025, the applicant responded to the HSE and said that her request was reasonable and proportionate and that she is entitled as a parent to access personal information relating to her child.
On 16 May 2025, the HSE refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, on the grounds that the request was too voluminous, and the scope was not narrowed to avoid the substantial and unreasonable level of interference with the HSE’s work. On 9 June 2025, the applicant sought an internal review of the HSE’s decision. The applicant said that access to her son’s records was critical for ensuring his continuity of care. On 17 June 2025, the HSE affirmed its original decision and on 23 June 2025 the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the HSE’s decision.
During the course of this review the HSE made submissions to this Office concerning the number of records involved in processing the applicant’s request as it stands and its reasoning for refusing the request under section 15(1)(c), details of which were provided to the applicant. The applicant was given the opportunity to provide submissions of her own. While the applicant did not provide substantive submissions, she indicated she is agreeable to the HSE’s suggestion in its submissions that she make a number of requests over a period of set intervals that would make the processing of the request more manageable. Notwithstanding this, the applicant said she would like her application for review in this case to continue.
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 and to the submissions made by the HSE. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is solely concerned with whether the HSE was justified in refusing the applicant’s request for all records pertaining to the care of her son under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act.
Section 15(1)(c) and 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 the HSE 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.
The HSE provided this Office with a copy of the correspondence it had with the applicant between 9 and 13 May 2025 concerning the scope of her request. On 9 May 2025, the HSE stated in its email to the applicant that her request was voluminous in its current format as it would involve processing in excess of 1,000 pages. The HSE said it would take over 35 hours to examine the records to assess them before release, and so this would, in the HSE’s view, cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Primary Care General Manager’s Office. As noted above, the HSE suggested that, to avoid her request being refused under section 15(1)(c), the applicant may wish to narrow the scope of her request by seeking records from a shorter time period, or by seeking access to records relating to a specific service(s). The applicant responded to the HSE by saying that she is entitled to the personal information of her son. She questioned why the records had to be examined and considered before release. The applicant declined to narrow the scope of her request and the HSE subsequently refused the request under section 15(1)(c) on 16 May 2025.
Having considered the HSE’s correspondence with the applicant, I am satisfied that it offered to assist the applicant in narrowing the scope of her request in order to avoid its refusal of the request under section 15(1)(c). Therefore, I am satisfied that the HSE complied with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act. I will now proceed to consider whether the HSE was justified in refusing the relevant parts of the request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
In its submissions to this Office, the HSE stated that the applicant’s request sought records from a number of services, including Public Health Nursing, Primary Care Therapies, the Early Intervention Team, referrals to CRC, and the Children’s Disability Network. The HSE said the request included in excess of 20 clinicians. The HSE said that its records are not centrally maintained and are held across multiple sites and locations. It added that a more accurate timeline for processing the in-scope records would be over 65 hours, based on an examination of 30 pages per hour.
The HSE stated that the records requested are a mixture of electronic and hard copy format. It said that each service and/or clinician maintain their own clinical and service files electronically and manually and are located across multiple sites. The HSE said that community records are not maintained like acute records which are centrally located on one site.
The HSE provided a list of the categories of requested record and outlined how many pages of records were contained in each:
• Audiology – 3 pages
• Orthotics – 16 pages
• Child’s Disability Network Team (East) – circa 1500 pages
• Speech & Language Therapy – 60 pages
• Public Health Nursing – 66 pages
• Occupational Therapy – 49 pages
• Physio – 264 pages
The HSE said that it would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with the work of the Office Manager’s role in the General Manager’s Office who would be responsible for reviewing, reading and examining the records to make sure they are fit for release or subject to redactions. The HSE also stated that the records contain a large number of handwritten notes which would be time-consuming to examine and review.
The Investigating Officer asked the HSE if it was willing to grant part of the applicant’s request for the records from some of the above categories with fewer pages. The HSE responded to this by saying that it is open to the applicant to make a number of requests over a period of set intervals that would make the processing of the request more manageable. The HSE suggested a possible sequence of seeking Audiology, Orthotics and Public Health Nursing records, and then on receipt of those records, seek Speech & Language, Occupational Health and Physiotherapy records. This could be followed by seeking Child Disability Network Team records for yearly intervals until completion. The HSE stated that if the applicant has a particular priority for a set of records, she may change the sequence order referred to.
The applicant was provided with an update on the HSE’s submissions, including the HSE’s proposed approach to breaking down her original request into a series of more manageable requests. She was also given the opportunity to provide submissions of her own. The applicant responded to this by saying that she was agreeable to the HSE’s suggested approach and that she wanted to keep her case open with our Office.
The HSE has outlined why granting this request in its original format would cause a substantial interference with its work. It should be noted that a refusal may be made on the basis of a disruption of the work of a particular functional area within the FOI body, and not necessarily on the basis of disruption of work of the body as a whole.
In her correspondence with the HSE about the scope of her request, the applicant asked why her son’s records need to be examined prior to being released to her. I accept that the HSE must examine each record and consider whether it can be released in full or in part and in doing so to consider whether any relevant exemptions in the FOI Act may apply to information contained in those records, such as personal information of individuals other than the applicant or her son.
Section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act 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. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the time and resources that would be required to retrieve and examine approximately 2,000 pages of records in order to process the applicant’s request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, and disruption of, the work of the relevant HSE service.
I am also satisfied that the HSE attempted to assist the applicant in narrowing her request and, while the applicant was initially reluctant to do so, she indicated to this Office that she would like to proceed with the HSE’s suggestion of making a series of smaller, more manageable requests which would enable the HSE to process those requests. If the applicant has not already done so, she should make a new request to the HSE to commence this process. This Office has no role in facilitating this process. The HSE’s list of the categories of records and page numbers outlined above may be useful for informing the applicant’s fresh requests. The applicant will have a right of appeal to the HSE, and subsequently to this Office, if she is unhappy with the HSE’s decision on any of her new requests.
In conclusion, I find that the HSE was justified in its decision to refuse the applicant’s request in its current format under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the HSE’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request in this case under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act on the ground that the request, in its current format, would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference or disruption of the HSE’s work.
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