![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000010 - [2024] UKUT 00416 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000010 - [2024] UKUT 00416 (TCC)
Fecha: 05-Nov-2024
Discussion and Analysis
Discussion and Analysis
The Tribunal finally rejects this ground.
The Applicant complains that if the Decision Notice is published then information about her financial position will be disclosed. This is not a basis for privacy. Embarrassment, which can be an inherent feature of litigation of this nature, does not give rise to unfairness (see PDHL at [36(4)]). In any event, the discussion of the Applicant’s financial circumstances is an inevitable component of the Decision Notice given to her since she invited the Authority to consider her financial circumstances when assessing the appropriate level of sanction. It is not realistic for her to now seek to rely upon the inclusion of those same financial circumstances as a reason for prohibiting publication of the Decision Notice.
Further, the discussion of her financial circumstances in the Decision Notice is very limited and reveals very little about her financial position – see para 6.3.3:
Serious Financial Hardship
Pursuant to DEPP 6.5D.1G, the Authority will consider reducing the amount of a penalty if an individual produces verifiable evidence that payment of the penalty would cause them serious financial hardship. Ms Dunne has produced verifiable evidence to the Authority that payment of a penalty of £494,917 (i.e. the total of the Step 1 figure of £399,817 plus the Step 5 figure of £95,100) would cause her serious financial hardship. The Authority considers it appropriate to reduce the Step 5 figure to £0 for serious financial hardship, but does not consider it appropriate to allow Ms Dunne to retain the financial benefit that she derived directly from her breach (DEPP 6.5D.2G(7)(a)). Therefore, the Authority does not consider it appropriate to reduce the Step 1 figure of £399,817.
Finally, there is some reference to the Applicant’s financial circumstances already in the public domain. The Citywire press reporting in relation to the Applicant’s firm refers to adverse financial matters affecting the firm (and the Applicant is quoted in relation to the same: “I personally am not walking away from any debt, I am taking a significant amount of debt on” [HB/30/321]).
- 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