Decision
Ms Y and University College Dublin
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-153932-G6V0Z5
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-153932-G6V0Z5
Published on
Whether UCD was justified, pursuant to section 10(12) of the FOI Act, in refusing to provide the applicant with a statement of reasons for certain decisions it took in connection with the rejection of her extenuating circumstances application on the ground that her application for a statement was not made within 12 months of the date on which she became aware of the decisions
23 September 2025
In a request dated 9 August 2024, the applicant applied to UCD, pursuant to section 10 of the FOI Act, for statements of reasons for the decisions, as outlined in a letter dated 11 July 2023, to reject an Extenuating Circumstances Application (ECA) she had made on 24 May 2023, to subject her to a specified academic plan, and to review her academic performance at a specified meeting in January 2024.
In its decision dated 2 September 2024, UCD refused to provide a statement of reasons under section 10(12) of the Act because the request was not made within 12 months after the date on which the applicant became aware of the relevant acts for which she had sought statements of reasons. It noted that the applicant had made six requests for statements of reasons, one dated 6 August 2024 and five dated 9 August 2024. It said that taken together, all six requests relate to matters arising from the applicant’s applications to the University for “extenuating circumstances” in relation to modules of her degree course. It said that leaving aside that the University’s view that it had already provided the applicant with adequate reasons for all decisions made by it in relation to her, it had responded to two of her requests which do not fall outside the timeframe provided by section 10(12)(a) by separate correspondence, with one response to follow. It said, therefore, that it did not propose to exercise its discretion to accept a late application in this instance.
On 18 October 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of UCD’s decision. She said its decision on her application for statements of reasons was inadequate as (i) it did not provide reasons for the decision, supported by the University’s rules, regulations, policies or procedures, and (ii) she believed there was a good and sufficient reason for the lateness of her application for statements of reasons. She said she had sought details in 2023 from UCD’s School of Medicine regarding the basis for rejecting her ECA and that School of Medicine personnel suggested that she was not entitled to be provided with reasons for decisions regarding her ECA, a position she believes to be inconsistent with section 10 of the FOI Act.
On 11 November 2024 UCD affirmed its decision to refuse to provide the statements sought. It noted that decision to which the application for an internal review relates is a letter dated 11 July 2023 relating to the rejection of the applicant’s ECA and next steps in relation to her academic plan. It noted that the letter also cites applicable policies and procedures to include details of supports to assist her in her academic progression. It said the issues raised in her application for an internal review appear to relate to how the University performs its functions rather than the adequacy of the information provided to her in response to her ECAs. It also noted that there was on-going litigation as between the applicant and the University before the Superior Courts and the Workplace Relations Commission in which the issues relating to her ECA and other matters were being ventilated. On 22 November 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s decision.
During the course of the review UCD sought to rely on section 10(7) of the FOI Act, a provision that had not been relied on in either the original decision or internal review. That section provides for the refusal of an application for a statement of reasons where the FOI body considers that the application is frivolous or vexatious, or forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from the same requester or from different requesters who appear to have made the requests acting in concert. The applicant was notified of this and invited to make submissions which were duly received.
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 exchanged between the applicant and UCD, and to the submissions made by both parties. I have also had regard to the relevant provisions of the FOI Act. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The scope of the review is concerned solely with whether UCD was justified in its decision to refuse, under sections 10(7) and/or 10(12)(a) of the FOI Act, to provide the statements of reasons sought in connection with the rejection of the applicant’s ECA.
Section 10(1) of the FOI Act provides that a person who is affected by an act of an FOI body, and has a material interest in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates, is entitled to a statement of reasons for the act and of any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of that act. Subsection (13) provides that the term “act” in relation to an FOI body includes a decision of the body.
Paragraph (a) of subsection (12) provides that an application under section 10 must be made within 12 months after the date on which the person who is affected by the act becomes aware of it. Paragraph (b) of subsection (12) provides that, notwithstanding paragraph (a), where the particular circumstances warrant it, the public body may accept an application outside the time limit specified in that paragraph.
The acts identified by the applicant in this case are decisions that were communicated to the applicant by letter dated 11 July 2023 informing her that an ECA she had made on 24 May 2023 had been rejected and outlining her academic plan for the following trimester.
This Office sought further information from the applicant in respect of her contention that she had been informed in 2023 that she was not entitled to be provided with reasons for decisions regarding her ECA. In her submissions, the applicant said there were multiple occasions in 2023 where she was advised by, or came to believe following discussions with, School of Medicine personnel, that she was not entitled to receive the reasons for the rejection of her ECAs. She said, however, that as far as she can recall, the exchanges during which she was expressly informed that she was not entitled to be provided with reasons for decisions concerning extenuating circumstances were all verbal. She said she did, however, also engage in email correspondence wherein she sought the bases for decisions regarding the rejection of her ECA. She provided this Office with copies of some correspondence with UCD staff concerning the reasons for the rejection of her ECA applications.
The applicant also provided details of her recollection of a number of meetings she had with UCD staff. She said that during a meeting on 14 March 2023 with a named UCD staff member, he informed the applicant that a specified ECA was “vague and poorly written” and recommended that she submit a new application. She said that when she asked for clarification on the exact grounds for the rejection - such as whether it was due to lateness or insufficient medical documentation, he stated that such details related to internal discussions of the committee and that she was not entitled to receive their reasoning.
The applicant said that, during a meeting on 7 September 2023, she asked a named UCD staff member to clarify why a specified ECA was rejected. She said she had questions in this regard because the letter which informed her of the ECAs rejection stated that the application was rejected “on the grounds of a backdated medical certificate as per the extenuating circumstances policy”. She said the Extenuating Circumstances Policy does not provide for rejection of applications on the basis of certificates, which are written on a date after the extenuating circumstances being certified actually occurred. She said she asked the named UCD staff member to point to the exact part of the policy being relied upon which he declined to answer.
The applicant said that on 14 September 2023 she spoke with a named UCD staff member in the Medicine Programme Office on the phone. She said she explained her confusion about the rejection of a specified ECA. She said she told the staff member that she had previously been advises by the staff member she met on 7 September 2023 that students were not entitled to reasons for ECA rejections. She said the staff member confirmed that this was correct and said the School was not required to disclose the committee’s reasoning beyond what was previously communicated.
The applicant further said that throughout 2023 she also met several times with her student advisor. She said that when she asked why her applications were rejected, the advisor stated that she did not give academic advice but noted that students sometimes receive brief reasons (e.g., lateness, insufficient documents) in Programme Board letters but she explained that detailed reasoning was considered confidential to the School and the committees involved.
UCD said the applicant’s section 10 request arises in the context of a reasonably lengthy history of interactions and communications between the applicant and UCD. It said the applicant has brought numerous complaints and claims against UCD in relation to the application of its Extenuating Circumstances Policy. It said that an Extenuating Circumstance is a “serious, unforeseen circumstances beyond [the student’s] control (ie, serious illness, family bereavement, etc) which prevent [the student] from meeting the requirements of [their] programme”. It said that if a student is unable to complete assignments or attend required classes/exams due to an unforeseen circumstance, the student may make an ECA. It said that, if a student is granted an extenuating circumstance in a module, the student will have the opportunity to retake the module.
UCD said that in the 2022 and 2023 academic year, the applicant failed certain modules and elements of her degree and submitted ECAs on 15 February 2023, 11 April 2023 and 24 May 2023. It said the 24 May 2023 ECA was rejected by the Board on 27 June 2023 and communicated to the applicant in the letter dated 11 July 2023. It said the applicant’s ECA was eventually granted around September 2023, after she had disclosed further details about her personal circumstances which were not included in her previous ECAs. It said the Board’s decision to accept the ECA in October 2023 had, in effect, superseded its earlier decisions to reject the applicant’s ECAs. It said the decision and reasons in the letters rejecting the previous ECAs no longer affected the applicant, and were no longer matters in respect of which she had a material interest affected by any act(s), or to which it/they related, as her ECAs had in effect been granted and the applicant could retake the modules.
UCD said the cornerstone of the applicant’s submissions in this case is that, sometime in 2023, she had asked the relevant UCD school for reasons why her ECAs were rejected and was told that she was not entitled to reasons. It said the applicant’s submission hinges on three discussions, a meeting with a named UCD staff member on 14 March 2023, a further meeting with the named UCD staff member on 7 September 2023 and a phone call with a second named UCD staff member in the relevant UCD school office on 14 September 2023. It said the applicant also refers to various meetings with a student advisor. It said it does not accept the applicant’s version of these events or that the inclusion of these allegations gives the applicant a fresh entitlement to seek reasons in respect of decisions over and above the reasons which UCD contends were provided when the decisions were issued. It said its position is that the decisions as issued were sufficiently reasoned. It said that there is no explanation for the applicant’s delay in submitting an application for a statement of reasons and it argued that the particular circumstances do not warrant it accepting the application outside the 12-month time limit.
This Office takes the view that the applicant bears the burden of proof in establishing the standing necessary to be entitled to a statement of reasons for an act of an FOI body under section 10. The FOI Act is silent as to the standard of proof which should apply in such cases. This Office takes the view that the standard of proof required is that of "the balance of probabilities".
It is not in dispute that the acts for which the applicant is seeking statements of reasons took place more than 12 months before she made her application. As I have outlined above, subsection 12(b) provides that the FOI body may accept a late application where the particular circumstances warrant it (my emphasis). The essential thrust of the applicant’s argument is that she did not submit an application within the required time-frame as she was previously wrongly advised that she was not entitled to be provided with reasons for decisions regarding her ECA. I have examined the contents of the emails the applicant provided in support of her argument. While I fully accept that they comprise queries and responses concerning the reasons for the refusal of the ECA, I am satisfied that they contain no evidence of the applicant having been misinformed in 2023 about her entitlement to reasons for decisions taken by UCD that affect her.
On the matter of the applicant’s allegations that she was advised at various meetings that she was not entitled to be provided with reasons, I note that this is disputed by UCD. Moreover, I also note UCD’s position that reasons were provided when the decisions were taken in respect of her ECAs. While the applicant may well dispute the adequacy of those reasons, the fact that UCD believes it has given reasons undermines, in my view, the applicant’s contention that she was advised that she was not entitled to such reasons. It seems to me that any concerns about the requirement to give reasons would more likely have been in respect of the extent to which reasons would be required. In my view, the applicant has presented insufficient evidence to support her contention that she was left with the understanding that she could not submit an application for a statement for reasons, nor has she explained why she subsequently considered it appropriate to make an application when she eventually did so. It is also noteworthy that the applicant made three FOI applications to UCD under section 10 of the Act to UCD that were within the 12 month time-frame.
In conclusion, I find that UCD was justified, pursuant to section 10(12)(a), in refusing to provide the statements of reasons sought. Having so found, it is not necessary for me to go on to consider the applicability of section 10(7). I would add, however, that no inferences can or should be drawn from that fact that I have decided to give no further consideration to the applicability of section 10(7) in this case.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm UCD’s decision. I find that UCD was justified in refusing, under section 10(12) of the FOI Act, to provide the statements of reasons sought.
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.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator