- Case summary
- Writ of mandamus refused. Given the way they came into existence and the purpose for which they were produced, the advisory opinions were confidential. Furthermore, having sight of the advisory opinions were not necessary for the preparation of the asylum applications (para.18). In ordering the disclosure of confidential information the Court would be guided by the principles enounced in Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2) [1974] AC 405 and Durham County Council v. Dunn [2012] EWCA Civ. 1654 (para. 19). Based on these principles, the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the advisory opinions outweighed the interests of the Applicants/Plaintiffs in their disclosure. Mandamus was therefore refused, as was the consequential relief sought for payment of the translation costs of the advisory opinions (para. 20).
Loading PDF...
This document is 619.0 KB. Do you want to load it?