Decision
Mr Y and University College Dublin
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161380-D1P2B8
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161380-D1P2B8
Published on
Whether UCD was justified in refusing access to further records relating to Academic Regulations under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act
17 October 2025
On 6 March 2025, the applicant made a request to UCD for records relating to Academic Regulation 6.9 (Academic Year 2024/2025). On 1 May 2025, UCD granted the applicant’s request, releasing one record and providing links to other records available on its website. On 26 May 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of UCD’s original decision, maintaining that further relevant records ought to exist. On 18 June 2025, UCD affirmed its original decision and noted that it had granted full access to all records not already publicly available and directed the applicant to those that were publicly available. On 11 August 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s decision on the ground that he considers that further records ought to exist.
After the Investigating Officer had requested submissions from UCD, UCD informed this Office that further relevant records had been located.
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. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
UCD’s decisions in this case contend that it has released all relevant records sought by the applicant and that no further relevant records exist. This is, in essence, a refusal, pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether UCD was justified in refusing access to any further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.
Section 15(1)(a) of the Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. The role of this Office in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at his/her decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records.
At this point, I wish to clarify that the de novo nature of our review process essentially means that the review is based on the circumstances and the law as they pertain at the time of my decision and is not confined to the basis upon which the FOI body reached its decision. As noted above, during the course of this review, UCD informed this Office that it had located further relevant records. In the circumstances, I simply cannot find that UCD had undertaken all reasonable steps to locate relevant records when processing the applicant’s FOI request. As such, I find that UCD was not justified in refusing to grant access to further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
It seems to me that the most appropriate course of action to take at this stage is to annul the decision of UCD to refuse the request for further records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act and to remit the matter back to UCD to consider the applicant’s request afresh. The applicant will have a right to an internal review and a review by this Office if he is not satisfied with UCD’s decision.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul UCD’s decision and direct it to undertake a fresh decision-making process on the applicant’s request in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.
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