According to the 16-page ruling, Judge Robin Callender-Smith said it was upholding an earlier decision last November not to supply the information BBAG had asked for in several Freedom of Information Act requests to the cabinet office.
The ruling said: “We are unanimously satisfied – on the balance of probabilities – that the appellant’s appeal in respect of both information requests must fail.”
It also referred to the “sovereignty” of government in making decisions at times of national crisis.
The judgement said: “Preserving the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility allows the government to engage in free and frank debate in order to reach a collective position, and to present a united front after a decision has been made.”
The Tribunal agreed that public disclosure of whether the cabinet formally discussed and approved the nationalisation decision “would intrude upon the Cabinet’s discretion to decide how such decisions are made– a matter of particular importance during periods of fast-moving financial crises”.
It also referred to “an intrusion on Cabinet sovereignty” and “a clear and considerable public interest in abiding by and upholding the Ministerial Code.”
David Blundell, chairman of BBAG, said: “While we are disappointed, the campaign continues in pursuing HM Treasury and the FCA under the Freedom of Information Act.”
Adviser view
Derek Bradley, founder of PanaceaAdviser, said: “I get very worried by statements like this; it’s not exactly what may be considered a good ‘consumer outcome’.
“With the growing focus on this point, I think the public should be very worried that those they elected to represent their interests in a democratic way choose to treat the electorate like mushrooms: kept in the dark and covered.
“The public and the B&B investors have every right to know in an open and democratic society. Does this mean we are not anymore if the question asked produces an embarrassing answer?”
