Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 73 2017 SLD 73 2017 SCMR 63
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided on 19th October, 2016. Hearing Date : 4th July,2016. (On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 173)

Hugh Tomlinson QC and Jessica Simor QC (Instructed by Olswang LLP) for Appellants.James Eadie QC and David Pievsky (Instructed by HMRC Solicitors Office) for
Respondents.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF INGENIOUS MEDIA HOLDINGS PLC AND ANOTHER) --AppellantSVS.COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTYS REVENUE AND CUSTOMS --RespondentS

Law:

Section:

(a) Confidentiality, principle of-- ----Scope---Public bodies---Public bodies were not immune from the ordinary application of the duty of confidentiality---Where information of a personal or confidential nature was obtained or received in the exercise of a legal power or in furtherance of a public duty, the recipient would in general owe a duty to the person from whom it was received or to whom it related not to use it for other purposes---Such principle, nevertheless, could be overridden by explicit statutory provisions. Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1992] Ch. 225) ref. (b) Confidentiality, principle of--- ----Scope---Disclosure of a taxpayer's affairs to the press by the Revenue department---Breach of principle of confidentiality---Where information of a personal or confidential nature was obtained or received in the exercise of a legal power/furtherance of a public duty, the recipient would owe a duty to the person from whom the information was received or it related (in the present case, the taxpayer)---Information disclosed to the journalists in the present case by an official of the revenue department was information of a confidential nature, in respect of which the department owed a duty of confidentiality to the claimants/taxpayers under S. 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (Act)---Such disclosure was not justified under the exception under S. 18(2)(a)(i) of the Act---Said exception only permitted disclosure to the extent reasonably necessary for the revenue department to fulfil its primary function---Revenue department's desire to foster good relations with the press, its desire to publicise its views on tax, and its belief that the journalists might have shared valuable information, did not justify the disclosure in the present case---Fact that the official did not anticipate his comments being reported was no justification for making them--- Appeal was allowed accordingly. Official of revenue department gave an interview to a newspaper journalist about tax avoidance. Interview was agreed to be 'off the record' and it was understood that the official's comments would not be published. During the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register