Finally, I turn to DTI’s handling of Mr Q’s information requests. I have accepted that DTI were entitled under the Code to withhold the information requested by Mr Q. I have noted the Permanent Secretaries assurance that in future unsuccessful applicants will be told at the earliest opportunity all the reasons why their applications failed to secure an award. I regard this as a satisfactory outcome to a largely unjustified complaint.
Mr P alleges that the company artificially and deliberately depressed the value of his shares. On 8 December 1994 he was granted emergency legal aid to enable him to appeal to the Court of Appeal against an Order refusing him leave to amend his Petition under Section 459 of the Companies Act 1986. On 9 February 1995 a full civil legal aid certificate was issued to Mr P following his success at the Court of Appeal. That certificate was revoked in August 1996, following representations by his opponent against the continuance of Mr P’s legal aid, on the grounds that it was unreasonable in the particular circumstances of the case that legal aid should continue.
Victorian house inspections certificate was reinstated on appeal, it was revoked again on 20 April 1999 on the basis that Mr P had failed to disclose information regarding his financial circumstances. The decision was upheld at appeal but because the wording of the Area Committee’s decision was incorrect the revocation was subsequently rescinded. The certificate was revoked again.
however, on 17 December 1999 and an appeal against the decision was refused on 2 March 2000. Mr P’s legal aid certificate. Mr P’s solicitors wrote to the Cardiff Office of the Commission on 27 October 1998 and asked to see this dossier. No reply was received and Mr P repeated the request on 26 June 1999. The Commission replied on 5 July, saying that they had no duty to reveal such information without the agreement of the originator of the representations and that they were not aware of any such agreement.