Decision
Ms Y and University College Dublin
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-157167-Y3F8Y5
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-157167-Y3F8Y5
Published on
Whether UCD was justified in its refusal of access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to the minutes of and attendees at certain meetings
15 April 2026
In a request dated 25 October 2024, the applicant sought access to the minutes for and attendees at meetings of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme Board and the UCD Medicine Taught Programmes Board that took place on 27 January 2023 and 25 April 2023. As no decision had issued the applicant sought an internal review of the deemed refusal of her FOI request on 25 November 2024. The internal review of the deemed refusal issued on 25 November 2024. UCD refused access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to the requested records on the basis that they do not exist. It said that no meetings of either committees were scheduled or held on the dates in question. On 5 March 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s deemed refusal of the internal review request.
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 submissions made by the applicant and to the submissions made by the FOI body in support of its decision. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
During the course of the review, UCD provided submissions to this Office outlining the reasons for which it maintains that it does not hold the records requested by the applicant. The applicant was provided with details of those submissions and was invited to make further submissions, which she duly did.
The applicant’s position is that she is not satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate relevant records. Accordingly, this review is concerned with whether UCD has carried out all reasonable searches under section 15(1)(a) of the Act to locate the records sought by the applicant in her FOI request.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI 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. Our role 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 to the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at his/her decision and must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the records management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
As noted above, UCD provided this Office with the reasons for which it maintains that it does not hold the records requested by the applicant, details of which were provided to the applicant. The applicant also made submissions in support of her position. While I do not propose to repeat the submissions from both parties in full here, I confirm that I have had regard to them for the purposes of this review.
The applicant said a letter to her from UCD dated 4 February 2023 referred to a review of her academic performance which took place following a meeting on 27 January 2023. She said it is or was her understanding that the academic performance review, which was referenced in the 4 February 2023 letter, involved the Chair of her Governing Board, and took place following the meeting of another Board (of which the Chair is not a member) on 27 January 2023.
The applicant said she is not satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate relevant records. She said she believes that records relating to meetings and/or decision-making processes on the dates in her FOI request should exist, based on documentary evidence provided to her by UCD. She said a letter dated 26 April 2023 which she received from UCD, referred to a 25 April 2023 Standing Committee meeting. She said UCD’s policy on Extenuating Circumstances involves ratification of decisions at a meeting of a student’s Governing Board. She said it is or was her understanding of the 26 April 2023 letter that decisions concerning her Extenuating Circumstances Application were ratified at a Board meeting that took place on 25 April 2023.
The applicant said she may have incorrectly cited the dates of 27 January 2023 and 25 April 2023 but in doing so she relied on dates, accounts of events and decisions, which were contained in official correspondence from UCD. She said UCD originally stated that the meetings took place on these dates, so she is unable to reconcile with its current position that the meetings did not take place on these dates.
The applicant said she appreciates that by using the word “minutes” in her FOI request she may have incorrectly used overly specific and/or improper language to describe meeting related records. She said that what she was hoping to obtain in this request was meeting records, including those related to quorums or votes required to carry decisions by simple majority, and/or papers, by whatever name known. She said she apologised if her FOI request read as being less general than she intended it to be.
UCD said it received the applicant’s FOI request on 25 October 2024. It said it issued an internal review decision on 25 November 2024 on the basis that the request had been deemed to be refused. It said the internal review decision cited section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, stating that the requested records did not exist because no meetings of either of the relevant committees had been scheduled or held on the relevant dates.
UCD said the decision maker stated that she had been advised that no meetings of either of the relevant committees had been scheduled or held on the relevant dates and that she was therefore, satisfied that no minutes existed regarding these meetings. In coming to this conclusion, the decision maker had enquired with the School of Medicine as to whether records of the two meetings referred to in the FOI request existed. It said that, on 7 November 2024, the School of Medicine confirmed by email to the decision maker that, further to searches in the school, no meeting of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme Board or the UCD Medicine Taught Programmes Board were held on the dates supplied in the request.
UCD said it received a new FOI request from the applicant on 5 December 2024, which enclosed copies of the two letters sent to her from UCD dated 4 February 2023 and 26 April 2023. It said it became apparent to UCD at this point that the applicant had referred to the Medicine Taught Programmes Board in the 25 October 2023 FOI request, when it was the Programme Examinations Board that was referred to in the letter dated 4 February 2023.
UCD said the applicant also sought records of a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme Board in the 25 October 2023 FOI request, which she believed, based on the letter of 26 April 2023, to have occurred on 25 April 2023. It said confusion may have arisen due to a reference in the letter of 26 April 2023 to a “Chair’s Action meeting of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme”. It said despite the reference to a Chair’s Action meeting, a Chair’s Action is not a meeting of the Standing Committee but, rather, the Chair (i.e. the Dean of the School of Medicine) carrying out a particular action or function, the only record of which is the letter informing the student affected by the action (in the applicant’s case, the letter dated 26 April 2023). It said no meeting of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme occurred on 25 April 2023, instead a Chairs Action had taken place, resulting in the letter to the applicant dated 26 April 2023.
UCD said that when the internal review decision issued on 25 November 2024, it correctly stated that no meetings of the committees specified in the applicant’s FOI request had occurred on either of the specified dates. It said it did not write to the applicant prior to issuing the internal review decision because, on the face of it, her request related to meetings which had never occurred. It said it was not until the subsequent FOI request was made, enclosing the letters giving rise to the applicant’s request for records of meetings of the specified committees, that it became apparent to UCD which records the applicant was seeking.
It is important to note that the FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations can arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. What the FOI Act requires is that the public body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. Furthermore, it is open to this Office to find that an FOI Body has satisfied the requirements of section 15(1)(a), even where records that an applicant believes ought to exist have not been located. A review by this Office is not concerned with the question of what records should exist. If a record does not exist, that is the end of the matter, regardless of the applicant’s views as to whether or not it should exist. Furthermore, we do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records sought ought to exist.
The applicant appears to be of the view that records coming within scope of her request should exist. She said she believes that records relating to meetings and/or decision-making processes on these dates should exist on the basis of information contained in letters sent to her by UCD. She also outlined what records she was hoping to obtain through this FOI request. This review is confined to considering what relevant records actually exist as opposed to what records the applicant considers should exist. The FOI Act is concerned with the provision of access to records actually held and it does not provide a right of access to records which ought to exist, nor does it place an obligation on a public body to create a record where none exist.
UCD’ position is that no meetings took place on the dates in question. It has outlined that the applicant referred to the Medicine Taught Programmes Board in the 25 October 2023 FOI request, when it was the Programme Examinations Board that was referred to in the letter from UCD to her dated 4 February 2023 as having met on 27 January 2023. Having examined this letter I can confirm that it does indeed refer to the Programme Examinations Board and not the Medicine Taught Programmes Board. Therefore, in my view, the letter dated 4 February 2023 did not inform the applicant that a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme Board took place on 27 January 2023, and I accept UCD’s position that no records exist for such a meeting on that date.
Having considered the contents of the letter from UCD to the applicant on 26 April 2023, I can understand why she took the view that a Chairs Action meeting of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme took place on 25 April 2023 as that is what the letter states. UCD’s explanation for this reference is that a Chair’s Action is not a meeting of the Standing Committee but the Chair carrying out a particular action or function. While the correspondence from UCD to the applicant on 26 April 2023 clearly gives the impression that a Chairs Action meeting of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme did occur, the clarity or otherwise of UCD’s communications is not the subject of this review. I accept that no Chairs Action meeting of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme took place on 25 April 2023. This finding is based on UCD’s enquiry with the School of Medicine as to whether records of the two meetings referred to in the FOI request existed and its response that no such meetings took place on the dates in question.
Following careful consideration of the submissions made by the applicant and UCD, I am satisfied that UCD has provided a reasonable explanation for its position that the records as requested by the applicant do not exist. In coming to this conclusion, I am cognisant of the fact that, in her submissions to this Office, the applicant accepts that she may have incorrectly cited the dates of 27 January 2023 and 25 April 2023, albeit that this was partly because of information contained in correspondence she received from UCD.
As I have outlined above, our role is confined to a consideration of whether UCD has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and whether it has adequately explained why it considers that no such records exist for the dates in question. In this case I am satisfied that it has. I appreciate that it is the applicant’s position that further records should exist and that she will therefore be disappointed with my decision. However, as I have outlined above, it is not within the remit of this Office to examine whether records should or ought to exist.
Accordingly, I find that UCD was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to the records sought by the applicant on the basis that no such records exist or can be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
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 its refusal of access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to the records of the minutes for and attendees at meetings of the Standing Committee of the Medicine Programme Board and the UCD Medicine Taught Programmes Board on 27 January 2023 and 25 April 2023.
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.
Shane O’Donoghue
Investigator