The court considered the balancing of interests when making a disclosure order under the 2004 Regulations.
Mitting J said: ‘the impression given . . is that the Tribunal did set up a hurdle or threshold of proof of actual particular harm which forms no part of the statutory test which I should apply. If I had been satisfied that the error was central to its decision I would have allowed the appeal and remitted the issue to be determined afresh by the Tribunal.
The considerations are not . . ulterior: they are at the heart of the debate which these cases raise. There is a legitimate public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of advice within and between government departments on matters which will ultimately result, or are expected to result in a ministerial decision. The weight to be given to those considerations will vary from case to case. It is no part of my task today to attempt to identify those cases in which greater weight will be given and those in which less weight may be appropriate but I can state with confidence that the cases in which it will not be appropriate to give any weight are those considerations will, if they exist at all, will be few and far between.’
Judges:
Mitting J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Cited by:
Cited – HM Treasury v The Information Commissioner Admn 21-Jul-2009
Disclosure of Government’s Legal Advice
The interested party sought to obtain the legal opinion on which the Prime Minister had based his assertion that the Financial Services and Markets Bill complied with Human Rights. The respondent refused claiming protection under the section, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266882