UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000010 - [2024] UKUT 00416 (TCC)
Fecha: 05-Nov-2024
Discussion and Analysis
Discussion and Analysis
This ground is also rejected.
It is accepted by all parties that there is a strong presumption in favour of publication of the Decision Notices. The Applicant accepts that she is highly critical of many of the factual foundations leading to the conclusions which are presented by the Authority in its Decision Notice. It is accepted that in the ordinary course those would be matters for consideration and disposition at the substantive hearing of the reference in due course. A summary of the nature and reasons for her denials and dispute of the allegations will be apparent from her representations as recorded in the Decision Notice.
There is a statutory presumption that decision notices will be published. That presumption advances the public interest in transparency and open justice. In considering whether a decision notice should be published, the Authority does not need to also demonstrate that there are additional public interests at play, such as increasing consumer knowledge or consumer protection. There is a public interest in promoting transparency in the UK financial services sector: if a person wishes to participate in the industry then they must accept this. The starting point is therefore that public interest lies in disclosing the Decision Notices and the open justice principle should apply. As such, the fact that the allegations concern matters that took place between April 2015 and June 2017 and that the Applicant has not carried out any regulated financial services activities since 2018 are not relevant to any consideration of alleged unfairness arising from publication of the Decision Notices.
The Applicant contends that there can be no “urgency or currency” in the publication of the Decision Notice where the Authority had been investigating the Applicant for several years prior to the Decision Notice being issued. This is also not relevant. The strong presumption in favour of open justice is not displaced by the lack of urgency or contemporary significance of a decision notice. In any event, the reason that the Decision Notice was not published when made (in early 2024) was because the Applicant made the Privacy Applications.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Law
- The Privacy Applications
- Submissions and evidence on behalf of the Applicant
- Adverse Impact on the Applicant’s Mental Health - evidence and submissions
- The Applicant’s written evidence
- [] The Applicant’s counsellor
- Discussion and analysis
- The evidence
- Procedural history relating to the provision of the mental health evidence
- The GP’s letters
- The letters from the Applicant’s counsellor []
- The Applicant’s personal statement
- The fact that some information concerning the subject matter of a reference is already in the public domain is a factor which tends in favour of publication
- The Remaining grounds for the Privacy Applications
- Publication of the Decision Notices would cause reputational destruction to the Applicant
- Discussion and analysis
- Publication of the Decision Notices is not appropriate and there is an absence of urgency or consumer protection imperative
- Discussion and Analysis
- Publication of the Decision Notices would reveal irrelevant personal information about the Applicant’s financial circumstances
- Discussion and Analysis
- Conclusions