In public interest that disclosure of dissenting views at cabinet be protected

Proceedings arising from a settlement agreement - payment of a living out allowance to non-consultant hospital doctors - plaintiffs allege that the defendants are in breach of the aforementioned settlement agreement as a result of which new entrant non-consultant hospital doctors have not received the requisite living out allowance as set out in contracts signed by them – discovery ordered - claim that two documents are privileged - draft memorandum for the Government review of public service allowances and premium pay - original email attaching Memorandum for Government review of public service allowances and premium pay - public interest privilege  - whether or not the two documents are subject to privilege and accordingly not subject to production - Cabinet confidentiality - contended on the plaintiffs’ behalf that discovery of a document cannot be obtained if the document evidences the discussion that leads to the decision but that the privilege of cabinet confidentiality does not extend to documents that were prepared for the discussion - onus is on the defendants to make out claim for privilege – contended that constitutional amendment clarified that the privilege was to extend only to meetings of the government and also introduced a power of the court which was not envisaged in previous decisions - two documents involved in this application involve direct communication between senior Ministers of Government in respect of matters fiscal and involve the comments and views of the relevant department Ministers - Court determined that it is in the public interest as a necessity that the disclosure of different or dissenting views held by members of the Government prior to the making of a decision at cabinet be protected in the public interest.