Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2023] UKUT 157 (AAC)

Fecha: 05-Jul-2023

Did the FTT decision adequately explain why “overbearing weight” was to be given to ‘tutors’ advantage’ in the public interest balance test?

Did the FTT decision adequately explain why “overbearing weight” was to be given to ‘tutors’ advantage’ in the public interest balance test?

43.

It seems clear that

the FTT decision made a factual finding (the “‘tutors’ advantage’ finding”) that ‘tutors’ advantage’ would arise as a result of disclosure of the requested information

that finding was based on the evidence of Mr Hilton and Ms Walton, which the FTT regarded as consistent and compelling

that evidence was challenged by Mr Coombs in terms that were rational and intelligible (if not necessarily correct)

the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding was material to the outcome of the FTT decision’s public interest balance test, given

that the FTT decision considered ‘tutors’ advantage’ to be contrary to the public interest (because it unfairly advantaged those who could afford tutors); and

ii.

the reference at [97] to the “overbearing weight to be given” to the “significant edge” to pupils receiving tuition, that would result from disclosure providing private tutors with “such an unfair advantage as has been so clearly identified by the witnesses” at the hearing.

44.

In this situation, the dicta about “adequacy of reasons” cited above indicate that the FTT decision needed to explain why it rejected Mr Coombs’ challenge to the evidence of ‘tutors’ advantage’, unless its reasons for doing so were reasonably obvious from the context of the FTT decision as whole.

45.

The FTT decision did not expressly provide such an explanation; but it did make clear its assessment of Mr Hilton and Ms Walton as competent, credible, reliable and well versed in the subjects that had to be addressed. I will therefore consider:

whether it is reasonably obvious from the context as to why the FTT decision rejected Mr Coombs’ challenge to ‘tutors’ advantage’; and, if not

whether reference to the reliability and credibility of Mr Hilton and Ms Walton is, in the context of this case, adequate explanation of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding.