Scotland's information commissioner has ruled that NHS Tayside failed to adequately respond to a Freedom of Information request concerning disgraced neurosurgeon Sam Eljamel, ordering the health board to release information it had wrongly withheld. The ruling, issued by commissioner David Hamilton, found that NHS Tayside had only partially met its legal obligations when it responded to a request submitted in March 2023 about an independent review into Eljamel's employment.
The request sought access to a 2019 report compiled by NHS Lothian's medical director, Tracey Gillies, which was commissioned after former patients alleged that Eljamel had caused them serious harm. Some patients say they suffered life-altering injuries, and the total number of people affected has been put as high as 200.
What did the commissioner find?
Hamilton concluded that NHS Tayside had disclosed only a fraction of the material requested, withholding most of it on the basis that it constituted personal data, while also claiming that certain records were not held at all. According to the decision, the board's approach amounted to only partial compliance with Freedom of Information law because it failed to give a full response and wrongly withheld some material.
According to the FOI decisions database, the ruling is formally logged as Decision 200/2026 and has been classified as "partially upheld," reflecting the mixed outcome for the health board. The decision was published by Scotland's FOI watchdog on 11 August 2026.
Commenting after the decision was made public, Hamilton said:
While this was not a straightforward request, it is nevertheless the case that NHS Tayside's approach fell significantly short of the requirements of FOI.
He also criticised the board's blanket handling of the request, saying:
NHS Tayside had taken a 'one-size-fits-all' approach when withholding information, failing to carefully consider the case for and against disclosure.
Why did the commissioner reject the personal data argument?
Hamilton was not convinced that some of the withheld details genuinely qualified as personal data. He pointed to the large number of staff employed by the health board, the generic nature of most of the job titles involved, and the amount of time that had passed since the events covered by the request as reasons to doubt that individuals could be identified.
He said he did not accept that releasing most of the job titles belonging to junior staff members would reveal the identity of a living person. Hamilton added:
While most personal information is rightly protected from disclosure under FOI, there will be some cases where release may be appropriate – particularly if it relates to the public and professional activities of senior staff. It is essential that authorities consider each case on its own merits, to ensure that the public's FOI rights are fully respected and upheld.
Further detail reported by a north Scotland news outlet confirms that the commissioner's scepticism about the personal-data classification rested specifically on staff numbers, the generic wording of job titles, and the time elapsed since the request period.
How does this fit into the wider Eljamel case?
Eljamel led the neurosurgery department at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee from 1995 until he was suspended in December 2013. He now works in Libya, and the first evidence sessions of a public inquiry examining his conduct are due to begin next month.
The case has already prompted significant action beyond this FOI dispute. Separately, NHS Tayside earlier reset the three-year legal time bar that would otherwise have prevented some former patients from pursuing compensation claims, a move campaigners described as a landmark step, as detailed in our earlier coverage of the time bar reset.
The Scottish Government has also released its own records on the matter. Published material titled "Briefing notes and communications relating to Professor Sam Eljamel" shows that information requests connected to the case extend beyond NHS Tayside itself, according to the Scottish Government's published FOI disclosures. Meanwhile, NHS Tayside's own guidance notes that an Independent Clinical Review tied to the case remains a factor in why underlying documents continue to be treated as sensitive, as outlined on the health board's rights information page.
What happens next?
NHS Tayside has been given until 17 September 2026 to carry out a revised review of how it handled parts of the original request, in line with the commissioner's instructions. The board has also been directed to release the specific information the commissioner found had been incorrectly withheld in the first place.
Responding to the ruling, a spokesperson for the health board said:
NHS Tayside intends to fully comply with the decision notice from the Scottish information commissioner.
Key Facts
- The commissioner's decision, numbered 200/2026, was published on 11 August 2026 and recorded as "partially upheld."
- NHS Tayside must complete a revised review of part of its response by 17 September 2026.
- The disputed 2019 report into Eljamel's employment was authored by NHS Lothian medical director Tracey Gillies.
- Eljamel headed neurosurgery at Ninewells Hospital from 1995 to his suspension in December 2013 and now works in Libya.
- A public inquiry into Eljamel's conduct is due to hold its first evidence sessions next month.
