Decision
Mr X & Medical Council
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160208-X6X2N5
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160208-X6X2N5
Published on
Whether the Council was justified in refusing access to the name of the insurance agent for a named medical practitioner pursuant to sections 35(1)(a), 36(1)(b), 36(1)(c) and/or 37(1) of the FOI Act.
14 April 2026
The Medical Council is the regulator of doctors in Ireland and maintains the Register of Medical Practitioners. In a request dated 10 June 2025, the applicant’s solicitor sought “the insurance information ” for a then registered but retired medical practitioner. In a decision dated 25 June 2025, the Council refused the request pursuant to section 37(1) of the FOI Act on the basis that release of the records would involve the disclosure of third-party personal information.
By way of letter dated 26 June 2025, the applicant’s solicitors sought an internal review of the Council’s decision wherein they submitted that the request made does not infringe on the protection of the personal information of the medical practitioner since the applicant only seeks “to be provided with the name of the insurance agent of the medical practitioner” .
In a decision dated 30 June 2025, the Council decided to affirm its original decision on foot of its internal review. It said that section 37(1) is a mandatory exemption and it places a requirement on the Council to withhold any personal information that does not belong to the requester and/or their next of kin.
On 1 July 2025, the applicant’s solicitor applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s decision. The applicant’s solicitors stated that they were “appealing on the basis that [they] only require the name of the medical practitioner's insurance agent” and that they “do not require any further details which would be considered personal information ”.
During the course of the review, the Council argued that the information sought was also exempt under sections 35(1)(a), 36(1)(b), and 36(1)(c) of the FOI Act. I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. While the applicant’s solicitors were provided with an opportunity to make submissions to this Office in support of their application for review, they elected not to do so, save for the comments made when applying to this Office for review. I have had regard to these comments and to the submissions made by the Council in support of its decision. I have also examined the records at issue. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The scope of this review is concerned solely with whether the Council was justified in refusing the request for the name of the insurance agent for a named medical practitioner pursuant to sections 35(1)(a), 36(1)(b), 36(1)(c) and/or 37(1) of the FOI Act.
The Information Sought
The applicant’s solicitors clarified in their application for internal review that they were seeking access to the name of the medical practitioner’s insurance agent. In its submissions to this Office, the Council explained that the information it holds that comes within the scope of the request is contained with the most up to date record the named practitioner provided when he previously renewed his registration with the Council. I understand the practitioner is retired and is no longer listed on the Council’s register. Having regard to the nature of the information sought, I consider section 37 to be the most relevant exemption and I will consider its applicability first.
Section 37(1)
Section 37(1) provides, subject to the other provisions of section 37, for the mandatory refusal of a request where access to the record sought would involve the disclosure of third-party personal information. For the purposes of the FOI Act, personal information is defined as information about an identifiable individual that (a) would ordinarily be known only to the individual or members of the family, or friends, of the individual, or (b) is held by a public body on the understanding that it would be treated by it as confidential. The definition also includes a list of 14 non-exhaustive examples of what must be considered to be personal information, including, for example, (ii) information relating to the financial affairs of the individual and (iii) information relating to the employment or employment history of the individual.
In its submissions to this Office, the Council explained that all doctors practising medicine in Ireland must be registered with the Council and are required to renew their registration on an annual basis. It said part of the requirements when renewing their registration is to provide information about their indemnity cover. It said that choosing a level of cover and whom to enter into a contract with for same is a doctor’s personal choice. It said the doctor must provide information to the indemnity provider about the type of medicine they practice, under what employer they may fall, and about any outstanding complaints or issues that may be in existence with the Council. It said there are many different indemnity providers offering various different types of cover to doctors registered with the Council and as it is their own personal choice as to whom they choose to enter into a contract with, the information is personal to the doctor and is exempt for release under Section 37(1) of the FOI Act.
The Council further explained that all doctors practicing medicine in Ireland must have indemnity cover appropriate to the nature of their employment/practice arrangement and their area of practice. It said professional indemnity for the purposes of the Medical Practitioners Act, 2007 is concerned with insurance cover for potential negligence actions only. It said that when making an application for registration, a doctor will be asked to select from a list of options relating to their proposed practice arrangements. It said that there are six practice arrangements that appear on the application form, and the Doctor will select the option which applies to their proposed practice arrangements. I note that the six practice arrangements are publicly available on the Council’s website and that a number of those options do not require the doctor to provide evidence of indemnity.
The Council added that while there are statutory requirements in terms of the display of information in relation to indemnity mandated by the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (in that regard, it cites section 43(7A) of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, and rules 5 and 7 of S.I. 222 of 2018 – Medical Council (Evidence of Indemnity) Rules 2018), it said that these provisions do not require the name of the indemnity provider to be displayed. Moreover, it explained that the named practitioner is retired and that retired practitioners are not required to provide evidence of indemnity cover to the Council, nor are the provisions requiring the display of certain information applicable to them. Furthermore, the Council said that the record at issue is one which was provided to it in error since it did not in fact require a copy of the named practitioner’s insurance certificate to be furnished to it as a he is a retired practitioner. The Council said it subsequently informed the named practitioner of this fact upon receipt of the record.
Having regard to the Council’s submissions, I am satisfied that the disclosure of the information sought would involve the disclosure of personal information relating to the named practitioner. It would disclose the details of the agent the practitioner chose to provide indemnity cover. I find, therefore, that section 37(1) applies. However, that is not the end of the matter as section 37(1) is subject to the other provisions of section 37.
Section 37(2)
Section 37(2) provides that subsection (1) does not apply if-
(a) the information concerned relates to the requester concerned,
(b) the individual to whom the information relates consents, in writing or other such form as may be determined, to its disclosure to the requester,
(c) information of the same kind as that available in the record in respect of individuals generally or a class of individuals that is, having regard to all the circumstances, of significant size, is available to the general public,
(d) the information was given to the FOI body concerned by the individual to whom it relates and the individual was informed on behalf of the body, before it being so given, that the information belongs to a class of information that would or might be made available to the general public, or
(e) disclosure of the information is necessary in order to avoid a serious and imminent danger to the life or health of an individual.
No argument has been made that any of the provisions of section 37(2) apply in this case. Nevertheless, for the avoidance of doubt, I have considered whether (c) above applies. I accept the Council’s evidence that the named practitioner is retired and that retired practitioners are not required to provide evidence of indemnity cover to the Council and that the statutory provisions requiring the display of certain information does not apply to them. I find, therefore, that the information held by the Council in this case is not information to which subsection (c) applies.
Section 37(5)
Section 37(5) provides that a request that would fall to be refused under section 37(1) may still be granted where, on balance (a) the public interest that the request should be granted outweighs the right to privacy of the individual to whom the information relates, or (b) the grant of the request would benefit the person to whom the information relates. I have no reason to consider that section 37(5)(b) applies, and the applicant has made no arguments to this effect.
In considering where the balance of the public interest lies in this case, I have had regard to section 11(3) of the Act which provides that in performing any functions under the Act, an FOI body must have regard to, among other things, the need to achieve greater openness in the activities of FOI bodies and to promote adherence by them to the principles of transparency in government and public affairs and the need to strengthen the accountability and improve the quality of decision making of FOI bodies. However, in doing so, I have also had regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court inThe Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Information Commissioner & Ors [2020] IESC 57 (“the Enet case”). In that case, the Supreme Court found that a general principle of openness does not suffice to direct release of records in the public interest and “there must be a sufficiently specific, cogent and fact-based reason to tip the balance in favour of disclosure ”. Although the Court’s comments were made in cases involving confidentiality and commercial sensitivity, I consider them to be relevant to the consideration of public interest tests generally.
In its submissions to this Office, the Council said it considered the following factors in favour of releasing the record:
• the public interest in the public knowing how the Council performs its functions;
• the public interest in members of the public knowing that information held by the Council about them, or those they represent, is accurate; and
• the public interest in members of the public exercising their rights under the FOI Acts.
The Council said it considered the following factors in favour of withholding the record:
• the public interest in protecting the right to privacy of medical practitioners and all those whose personal information and personal documentation is submitted to the Council, particularly in relation to insurance/indemnity cover;
• the public interest in members of the public, witnesses, experts and medical practitioners being able to communicate in confidence with the Council, and without fear of disclosure in relation to personal or sensitive matters;
• the public interest in protecting the right to privacy of any medical practitioner no longer registered with the Council and therefore not practising medicine in the Republic of Ireland whether through retirement, emigration or otherwise; and
• the public interest in the Council being able to perform its functions effectively particularly in relation to the investigation of complaints.
The Council submitted that the public interest in preserving the privacy of the doctor involved outweighs the public interest that would be served should personal information be released. In arriving at this decision, it said that it had due regard to the need for members of the public to be able to verify the registration of medical practitioners and the public's right to feel confident in their relationship with their medical practitioner.
The Council further stressed the importance of members of the medical profession engaging with its complaints and registration processes and having confidence in the Council as a data controller. It submitted that breaching a doctor’s confidential personal information would reasonably lead to a breakdown in this relationship by allowing distrust to form between a Doctor and the Council, which it said would have an impact on the effectiveness of its ability to carry out its statutory functions in line the 2007 Act.
In this case, the named practitioner was not required to submit details of indemnity cover to the Council and did so in error. As such, I fail to see how the release of the information sought could enhance the transparency of the Council to any real extent. On the other hand the FOI Act recognises the public interest in the protection of the right to privacy both in the language of section 37 and the Long Title to the Act (which makes clear that the release of records under FOI must be consistent with the right to privacy). It is also worth noting that the right to privacy has a constitutional dimension, as one of the unenumerated personal rights under the Constitution. Moreover, unlike other public interest tests provided for in the FOI Act, there is a discretionary element to section 37(5)(a), which is a further indication of the very strong public interest in the right to privacy. Privacy rights will therefore be set aside only where the public interest served by granting the request (and breaching those rights) is sufficiently strong to outweigh the public interest in protecting privacy.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there is a specific, cogent and fact-based reason which would outweigh the strong protection to be afforded to the right to privacy of the individual concerned. I find, therefore, that section 37(5)(a) does not apply.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Council was justified in refusing the request under section 37(1) of the Act. Having so found, I do not need to consider the applicability of the other exemptions cited by the Council in support of its refusal of the request.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Council’s decision to refuse access to the name of the insurance agent for a named medical practitioner pursuant to section 37(1) 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.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator