The High Court has quashed the Information Commissioner’s decision to uphold St James’s Hospital’s refusal to add a statement to a medical record, ruling that material information from the hospital was not put to the applicant or considered.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland delivered judgment on 24 February 2023 in an appeal by Ms T under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014. The appeal concerned a letter in the medical file of Ms T’s deceased partner, Mr PL, about his alcohol-consumption history. Ms T had sought an addendum saying that information in the file contradicted the history recorded in the letter.
The letter, dated 18 March 2015, was written by a St James’s consultant to a doctor at St Vincent’s Hospital as part of a referral for assessment of Mr PL’s suitability for a liver transplant. It recorded a history of 40 units of alcohol a week for 15 years when he was younger. Other records before the Commissioner included different figures and a GP referral stating there was no history of excess alcohol.
The Commissioner upheld the hospital’s refusal in November 2021, finding that Ms T had not shown on the balance of probabilities that the information was incomplete, incorrect or misleading. The hospital’s earlier explanations focused on the information having been provided by Mr PL and recorded during clinical visits.
But in a letter responding to a settlement proposal in February 2021, the hospital added that the higher level of consumption in the chart would be used in a transplant referral, describing this as accepted clinical practice. The Commissioner did not consider that explanation because it had been supplied during the statutory settlement process.
Justice Hyland found the explanation was material. It raised a distinct issue about why the higher figure had been selected despite other information in the file, and the Commissioner should have conveyed its substance to Ms T for comment and considered it in reaching a decision. The court said the Commissioner had not provided a reason for excluding it from consideration.
The court therefore upheld Ms T’s appeal and quashed the Commissioner’s 10 November 2021 decision. It did not determine whether the hospital’s record should be amended or direct that an addendum be made. The court listed the matter for submissions on costs and to consider whether it should be remitted to the Commissioner. It refused Ms T’s request to adjourn for mediation because the parties had not decided to engage in mediation.