Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Dr Piu Banerjee

June 24, 2009 | No Comments

Banerjee saw the court refusing to anonymise, following a public hearing, a judgment about the taxation issues around a doctor’s expenses. Dr Banerjee argued that she was vulnerable to attack or identity theft, that it would be professionally embarrassing to her to be named and that there was no public interest in identifying her. The judge, whilst accepting that there was a legitimate Art 8 expectation of privacy in a person’s financial affairs, considered that there was an overarching public interest in open justice and court reporting. The details here were not especially embarrassing, there was no increased physical, financial or professional risk to her and “there is nearly always a wider public interest potentially involved in even the most mundane-seeming tax dispute.”

This case was decided on 19 June 2009 and is available here.

Rosalind McInnes

Art. 08 Right to Private and Family Life, Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Taxation

Leave a reply

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Disclaimer

Full copyright remains with the original author of each article. Please contact our contributing editors for source information.

Browse by

Cross Reference

Search Type

Search

SHRLG Archives

Formed in May 2009, the Scottish Human Rights Law Group is a non-affiliated, independent, professional network for those engaged in legal practice and study, in academia and politics, in campaigning and in the provision of advice. It exists to raise awareness and knowledge of human rights law in Scotland, and to provide a forum for discussion of matters of interest across the field. The group organises seminars and roundtable discussions on human rights and is accredited for the purposes of CPD.