The claimant sought judicial review of the disclosure, off the record by an officer of the defendant to a journalist, of confidential materials as to their investigation of his involvement in a film investment scheme. The claim had been rejected by the Administrative Court.
Held: The appeal failed. Sir Robin rejected the claimants’ arguments that the disclosures made were not ‘in connection with a function’ of HMRC, properly construed, and that the judge had adopted the wrong standard of review. As to the first argument, he held that a wide meaning should be given to section 18(2)(a)(i) (‘ . . subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure which is made for the purposes of a function of the Revenue and Customs’). As to the second argument, Sir Robin echoed Sales J’s holding that it was not for the court to ‘review all the facts de novo as though it were the primary decision maker’.
Sir Robin Jacob, Moore-Bick and Tomlinson LJJ
 EWCA Civ 173,  STI 612,  STC 1357,  1 WLR 3183,  BTC 12
Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 18
England and Wales
Appeal from – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 25-Oct-2013
Application for judicial review of a decision of the Defendants acting by one of their most senior officials to disclose information relating to the claimants in an ‘off the record’ briefing with two journalists.
Held: The request for judicial . .
At CA – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2016
The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.543878