A FRESH ruling on whether the Government must release secret documents surrounding Nestlé’s takeover of Rowntree is expected within weeks following the latest legal hearing.

The Cabinet Office, The Information Commissioner and The Press appeared at an Upper Tribunal hearing in Field House in London on Friday in the latest twist in this newspaper’s five-year quest to obtain the documents.

The Information Commissioner and a First Tier Tribunal have said Government papers relating to the 1988 takeover of the York confectionery giant should be made public, but the Cabinet Office has twice appealed against the rulings.

Judge Williams heard legal arguments on Friday and is likely to announce his decision next month.

James Cornwell, representing the Cabinet Office, claimed the First Tier Tribunal had got itself into an “incredible muddle” but Robin Hopkins, for the Information Commissioner, said it had acted “entirely correctly”.

The case stems from a request made by this newspaper in 2008, under the Freedom of Information Act, asking for all Cabinet Office documentation relating to the takeover of Rowntree’s by Nestlé in 1988.

Some letters were released at that point but most files were withheld. The Cabinet Office cited the 30-year-rule, which says how long Government papers should remain classified.

The Press re-submitted its request in 2010 after a ruling in a separate case identified various criteria which, if met, meant Government files should be released before the standard 30 years. However the Cabinet Office maintained its original refusal.

The Information Commissioner found in favour of The Press, as did the first tribunal, and York MPs Hugh Bayley and Julian Sturdy have both backed The Press’s stance in writing. Part of The Press’s argument is that the 30-year-rule has since been replaced by a 20-year-rule and the current and previous Governments have both said 20 years was long enough for people to see Government files.

The legal arguments at the latest hearing focussed on whether the change from a 30-year-rule to a 20-year-rule was relevant to this case, because it happened after The Press’s original request.

Arguments also focussed on whether the first tribunal had under-estimated the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of Cabinet papers and a referece in the first tribunal report to The Press giving evidence, when it had made only a written submission. Mr Hopkins said the Cabinet Office was “clutching at straws” on that point.

The Press was excluded from part of the hearing because it involved discussion detailing the content of the files in question.