184 400.
I accept that FBI raised a series of relevant questions in the MHC letter of 29th
October, 2020 which ought to have been answered more fully at the time by the DPC. However, again, I do not see that as a reasons issue. In my view, the failure to respond more fully to the questions raised in the MHC letter of 29th October, 2020 does not detract from the adequacy of the reasons given in the earlier correspondence and in the PDD itself. 401.
As regards the requirement to give reasons for the decision making process, in my
view the DPC complied with its obligation to do so. In Mallak, Fennelly J. stated:“In the present state of evolution of our law, it is not easy to conceive of a decision maker being dispensed from giving an explanation either of the decision or of the decision making process at some stage. The most obvious means of achieving fairness is for reasons to accompany the decision.” (para. 68, p. 322) I am satisfied that the letters of 28th August, 2020 and 3rd September, 2020 and the PDD itself did adequately explain the decision making process and that FBI was in no doubt about what that process was. 402.
In summary, therefore, I am satisfied that the DPC did provide adequate reasons for
its decision and for the decision making process. In those circumstances, I reject this ground of challenge. 23. Duty of Candour (a) Summary of the Parties’ Positions (1) FBI 403.
While it was not a pleaded issue in the case and while no relief was sought in respect
of it, FBI contended in correspondence and in its written submissions and in the oral submissions at the hearing that the DPC was in breach of its duty of candour in refusing to answer the questions raised in the MHC letter of 29th June, 2020. I have referred earlier to the questions raised in that letter and to the response to the letter provided by Philip Lee on
