FOI refusals on workload grounds are more likely to hold up when the agency's estimate is itemised, sampled and tied to the records' real complexity. That is the lesson of 'BBP' and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Freedom of Information) [2026] AICmr 74, according to law firm Holding Redlich.
The Information Commissioner accepted DFAT's estimate that processing the request would take approximately 113.75 hours. That was enough to establish a practical refusal reason under section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Processing would substantially and unreasonably divert agency resources.
The decision confirms that agencies may factor in specialist review, the sensitivity of information and the complexity of exemptions when calculating processing time. It also confirms that complexity can matter more than page count.
The applicant sought all materials relating to their designation under the Autonomous Sanctions regime, including the reasons for the Minister's decision. They also sought any other personal data DFAT held about them.
After receiving a practical refusal notice, the applicant dropped the personal data category. DFAT maintained that a practical refusal reason still existed and refused access.
The applicant challenged both the consultation process and DFAT's assessment of the processing burden.
DFAT's estimate covered searches, examination of documents, redactions and third party consultations. It also covered preparing a schedule of documents, a statement of reasons and notification.
It was based on a sampling process covering 143 documents comprising 1,152 pages. DFAT supported it with evidence of preliminary searches, the number of relevant documents identified, the sampling itself and an itemised breakdown of processing activities.
The Commissioner accepted an estimate of approximately six minutes per page for examination and redaction. The documents concerned sanctions and international relations matters involving national security sensitivities.
The Commissioner also accepted DFAT's evidence that these sensitivities would not necessarily be apparent on a first reading. They required review by both FOI officers and specialist subject matter experts.
Other lessons from the decision
The applicant argued that some material had already been provided through administrative processes. The Commissioner rejected the suggestion that this materially reduced the burden.
Documents released administratively may still require a full exemption assessment under the FOI Act, the Commissioner noted.
The estimate could also legitimately include time for preparing schedules of documents, statements of reasons, release packages and decision notifications. Processing time is not limited to document review.
The Commissioner reaffirmed previous authority that a diversion of resources is substantial if it is "real or of substance", rather than necessarily "large". The 113.75 hours met that threshold.
Holding Redlich's Elizabeth Carroll and Julia Vinckx note that agencies do not need to apply a "one size fits all" approach.
"A claim of processing burden is more likely to be accepted where the estimate is transparent, supported by sampling and linked to the actual complexity of reviewing, redacting and deciding upon the documents," they write.
Based on the decision, an estimate should identify the number of documents and pages involved, explain the methodology used and break down individual tasks. It should be supported by actual searches and sampling where possible.
It should also take account of document sensitivity and specialist review requirements, and demonstrate a tangible impact on agency operations.
Broad assertions that a request is burdensome are unlikely to be enough. The decision indicates agencies should explain how each component of the estimate was calculated.