The taxpayer sought anonymity in the reporting of the case against her.
Held: No, she could not be given anonymity.
Henderson J said: ‘In determining whether it is necessary to hold a hearing in private, or to grant anonymity to a party, the court will consider whether, and if so to what extent, such an order is necessary to protect the privacy of confidential information relating to the party, or (in terms of Article 8 of the Convention) the extent to which the party’s right to respect for his or her private life would be interfered with. The relevant test to be applied in deciding whether a person’s Article 8(1) rights would be interfered with in the first place, or in other words whether the Article is engaged so as to require justification under Article 8(2), is whether in respect of the disclosed facts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy: see Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, at paragraph 21 per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, and Murray v Express Newspapers Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2008] 3 WLR 1360, at paragraph 24 of the judgment of the court. If Article 8(1) is engaged, the court will then need to conduct a balancing exercise on the facts, weighing the extent of the interference with the individual’s privacy on the one hand against the general interest at issue on the other hand. In cases involving the media, the competing general interest will normally be the right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. In cases of the present type, the competing interest is the general imperative for justice to be done in public, as confirmed by Article 6(1) of the Convention.’
Judges:
Henderson J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 1229 (Ch), [2009] EMLR 24, [2009] BTC 337, [2009] STC 1930, [2009] STI 1963, [2009] 3 All ER 930
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (No 2) ChD 19-Jun-2009
The court was asked whether the taxpayer dermatologist could deduct the expenses of attending educational courses, conferences and meetings, including associated costs of travel and accommodation.
Held: She could.
The defendant requested . .
Cited by:
Cited – Imerman v Tchenguiz and Others QBD 27-Jul-2009
It was said that the defendant had taken private and confidential material from the claimant’s computer. The claimant sought summary judgement for the return of materials and destruction of copies. The defendant denied that summary judgement was . .
See Also – HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee CA 28-Jul-2010
The taxpayer doctor had claimed against her income tax, the costs of attending training courses required under her employment contract and for professional development. The Revenue appealed against a decision allowing the expenses.
Held: The . .
Cited – ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust QBD 26-Jul-2019
Defamation/privacy claims against doctors failed
The claimant, seeking damages for alleged defamation, now asked for the case to be anonymised.
Held: The conditions for anonymisation were not met. The anonymity would be retained temporarily until any time for appeal had passed.
As to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Income Tax, Media
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.347121
