Materiality of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding?
Materiality of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding?
TBGS made a further submission that appeared to say that because the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding weighed on the same side of the public interest balance as the public interest in the maintenance of confidences, it was not relevant, or materially relevant, if the FTT decision erred in relation to ‘tutors’ advantage’. I do not accept such a submission: the FTT decision recognised one or more factors weighing in the public interest balance in favour of disclosure (see at [97]) and then found that the ‘tutors’ advantage’ factor carried “overbearing weight”. If one removes the ‘tutors’ advantage’ factor from the balance (on grounds that it was inadequately explained and so represented an error of law), the overall public interest balance is, clearly, materially changed.
- Heading
- The appeal is allowed
- Directions
- REASONS FOR THE DECISION
- The Upper Tribunal proceedings
- Dicta on adequacy of reasons
- Ground a
- Ground b
- What was the evidence of ‘tutors’ advantage’?
- Was the evidence of ‘tutors’ advantage’ challenged?
- Did the FTT decision adequately explain why “overbearing weight” was to be given to ‘tutors’ advantage’ in the public interest balance test?
- Reasonably obvious from context why Mr Coombs’ challenge rejected?
- Reliability and credibility of witnesses - adequate explanation of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding?
- Relevance of “closed session” information?
- Materiality of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding?
- Conclusion on ground b
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 157 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)