UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000010 - [2024] UKUT 00416 (TCC)
Fecha: 05-Nov-2024
Introduction
Introduction
The Applicant, Heather Dunne, makes two privacy applications and one case management application:
The first privacy application was contained within her Reference Notice dated 30 January 2024 and made pursuant to para.3(3) of Sch.3 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (“the Procedure Rules”) seeking a direction that her reference not appear on the Upper Tribunal’s register.
The second privacy application was made by letter dated 25 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Procedure Rules for directions that there be no publication by the Financial Conduct Authority (“the Authority”) or any other party on its behalf or instruction of, about or connected with the Decision Notices issued by the Authority to her and Mr Richard Fenech (“the Applicants”) dated 2 January 2024 except to the extent necessary to progress their references which have been joined and are currently before the Upper Tribunal (“UT” or “Tribunal”).
The two privacy applications dated 30 January and 25 March 2024 are hereafter referred to as the “Privacy Applications”.
The case management application sought two directions pursuant to Rule 14 of the Procedure Rules: i) that the Privacy Applications not be provided to Mr Fenech or his legal representatives; and ii) the materials provided by the Applicant in support of the Privacy Applications not be provided to Mr Fenech or his legal representatives.
As for the case management application, this was granted by way of the directions issued by the Tribunal on 17 September 2024 which further directed that the Privacy Applications be heard in private pursuant to Rule 37 of the Procedure Rules and without notice to Mr Fenech.
At a hearing in private on 5 November 2024, the Tribunal considered the Applicant’s Privacy Applications which were opposed by the Authority. No oral evidence was called or heard. Mr Cherry of Fladgate Solicitors appeared for the Applicant and Mr Pritchard of counsel appeared for the Authority. I am very grateful to them both for the quality of their written and oral submissions.
- 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