Section 28 of the Act does not operate to elevate the ‘public interest in avoiding the disclosure of commercially sensitive information’ such as the audio and vision, over the ‘right to a fair hearing’. The provision instead appears to require the Tribunal to engage in a balancing exercise to evaluate whether the circumstances permit eroding either the right to a fair hearing, or the confidentiality identified within the Act. That Parliament has not asserted the predominance of confidentiality with ‘irresistible clearness’ dilutes any suggestion that Saga’s right to a fair hearing must be subservient to the ‘public interest’. Indeed, the imperative in preserving confidentiality is less compelling when the information in question pertains to commercial rather than criminal or national security matters.

Sample Solution

find the cost of your paper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *