The High Court has upheld the Information Commissioner’s decision that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council could refuse a broad records request by Jackson Way Properties Ltd and its director, James Patrick Kennedy, on administrative grounds.
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2020, Ms Justice Hyland refused the relief sought in the statutory appeal and upheld the Commissioner’s decision. The appeal concerned the Commissioner’s January 2019 decision affirming the council’s refusal under section 15(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014. That provision allows refusal where retrieving and examining records would cause substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of an FOI body’s work.
The request, made in February 2017, sought all council-held communications relating to Jackson Way, including its property and title, alleged covenants or burdens, compensation claims, and legal proceedings. The council identified 72 potentially relevant hard-copy files across its departments and thousands of emails from searches dating back to 2006. The judgment records estimates of 108 hours to examine the files and 154 hours to review emails, with work also expected to fall on the council’s FOI and legal services teams.
The appellants argued that “work” under the Act should mean only work involved in discharging a local authority’s statutory functions, and that the Commissioner had not properly assessed whether the disruption would be unreasonable as well as substantial. They also challenged the decision’s reference to “voluminous requests” and said there was insufficient evidence to support refusal.
Justice Hyland rejected the proposed narrow definition of “work”, finding that the section could cover any intra vires activities of an FOI body, including FOI and legal services work. She said the reasonableness assessment could take account of the number and nature of records, the retrieval and examination required, the type of work affected and the extent of disruption. The Commissioner was not required to separate the substantial and unreasonable elements in the analysis, provided the cumulative statutory test was applied.
The court also found that the “voluminous requests” wording did not establish that the Commissioner had ignored the reasonableness requirement. It concluded that the record volumes, estimated review time, staffing demands and effects on several council functions supplied an ample evidential basis for the decision.
The court therefore refused the appeal relief and upheld the Commissioner’s decision. It did not make a new determination on access to the records; the council’s refusal remained in place.