The Supreme Court dismissed the Rotunda Hospital’s appeal over access to two 1922 records showing the age of a patient when she gave birth. It ordered the hospital to disclose the entries to the patient’s son, Thomas Joseph Walsh, through his daughter, Dawn Walsh, who made the request on his behalf.
The court held that the Freedom of Information Acts could apply to certain records created before the legislation began. Under section 6(5)(b), access may extend to older records relating to personal information about the person seeking them. The court treated the requested age as personal information about Bridie Walsh, the patient, and considered whether it could be released to her son as next of kin.
The judgment said there was no specific evidence that Bridie Walsh was dead, but found on the balance of probabilities that she was, given that she gave birth in 1922. It also found it probable that Thomas Joseph Walsh was her son and next of kin; the judgment records that these points were not contested. Applying the relevant regulations for requests concerning deceased people, the court concluded that the information should be disclosed to him through Dawn Walsh.
The court rejected the Information Commissioner’s conclusion that the age was available to the general public because birth records could be consulted. It said that, with a name such as Bridie Walsh, specific information would be needed to locate the relevant birth record, so the age was not in practice available to the general public under the statutory exemption.
The Rotunda had argued that the records were given in confidence and should remain confidential. The Supreme Court agreed that the information had been supplied in confidence and that continued receipt of similar information mattered to the hospital. However, it said this did not end the matter: the Act allowed a public-interest balance. The judgment noted the limited information sought, the requester’s close family connection, and the absence of significant countervailing factors, and said the balance favoured disclosure.
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered disclosure of the information. It also said the Commissioner’s notice to vary raised issues including costs and whether the hospital could introduce a new legal issue at the High Court stage. The judgment’s stated conclusion does not set out a separate order on those issues.