UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000010 - [2024] UKUT 00416 (TCC)

The Applicant has been afforded a number of opportunities to adduce cogent evidence relating to the effect of publication of the relevant information on her mental health by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has granted more than one extension of time to do so since the issue of privacy was first raised in January 2024. In the Authority’s letter to the Applicant’s legal representatives dated 28 February 2024, the Authority noted that “given the significance of the matters relied on in support of the Applicant’s application, and the need to ensure that the Tribunal has the most cogent evidence available to it in order to determine the same, evidence as to the impact of publication on the Applicant’s mental health should be sought from a qualified medical professional, which in this situation we consider ought to be a psychiatrist” [HB/38/368]. The Authority then proposed that the Applicant be afforded additional time to obtain and submit such evidence, and by the Tribunal’s directions dated 8 March 2024 [HB/4/133], she was afforded until 25 March 2024 to do so.

On that date, the Applicant submitted her privacy application pursuant to Rule 14 of the Procedure Rules [HB/6/143], together with a personal statement she had prepared [HB/21/286], which annexed two letters from her counsellor [] (who is not medically qualified) [HB/18/278] and [HB/20/284], both of which had previously been appended to the Applicant’s FTC3 (Reference Notice), and a copy of her antidepressant prescription [HB/19/283].

The Authority’s 11 April 2024 letter again reiterated that the Applicant had “not provided any evidence from a psychiatrist or other qualified medical professional in support of her Privacy Applications” ([HB/41/399] at [9]). The Authority invited the Applicant to adduce such evidence in order to allow for “proper assessment of the very serious issues she has raised regarding her mental health” (at [10]), and agreed to a six-week extension, to 31 May 2024, in order to allow the Applicant to do so [HB/8/201]. During that and a further two-month extension to 31 July 2024 [HB/13/254], the Applicant adduced the First and Second GP Letters [HB/22/300] and [HB/23/301], which are discussed below.

In its previous directions, the Tribunal observed that the evidence obtained by the Applicant, which at that time consisted of the two letters from the Applicant’s counsellor which she had appended to her FTC3, was insufficient. The Tribunal’s observations were as follows:

The Applicant has had more than a reasonable opportunity to provide medically qualified or expert evidence in support of her application but has not filed any evidence from any such professional (a psychiatrist or psychologist). While it is right that this is not determinative of her application and she is not required to file such evidence, the Tribunal places less weight on the evidence filed from her GP, her counsellor and herself. This is for the reasons set out below.